9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No.AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-350-13-14, dt.12.02.2014. 2. The issue involved in these proceedings is imposition of penalties upon the appellant under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for late filing of ER-1 returns. 3. Shri M.A. Patel (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that on-line filing of ER-1 return was required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Alok Srivastava (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant is habitual in late filing of ER-1 returns. That the adjudicating authority has been genuine in imposing penalty for each months delay and imposition of penalty started with a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- per month in June 2012 and was gradually increased to Rs. 5,000/- for late filing of return in the month of February 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal in that case was decided with respect to the default in payment of monthly dues under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the proceedings of late filing of ER-1 returns under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also observed from the show cause notice dt.27.06.2013 that appellant was called upon to show cause as to why for each m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalties by the first appellate authority has been correctly upheld. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, penalties imposed upon the appellant for each months delay is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for each months delay to the meet the ends of justice. 6. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. (Operative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
