2012 (10) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. ORDER In this case, the allegation against the appellant is that during the period from April, 2011 to July, 2011, they neither paid duty electronically nor filed the ER-1 Return electronically and thereby contravening the provisions of Central Excise Rules. For this reason, after issue of the show cause notice, the jurisdictional Superintendent imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el for the appellant, pleaded that there were genuine reasons for appellant's failure to make the payment of duty and filing the return through e-mode, as the appellant being a Cooperative Sugar Mill, they were required to seek permission from their Head Office at Lucknow for this purpose and that in the circumstances of the case, maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for each month and for each offence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... attract penalty under Rule 27. The Rule 27 however provides for penalty which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is maximum penalty prescribed under this Rule. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence and each month is excessive. Accordingly, the total penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). The impugn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X