TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records as cited by the lower authorities in the impugned order under new Rules. Therefore I hold that penalties are not imposable on the appellants and impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/53125-53126/2014-EX(SM) - Final Order Nos. A/54772-54773/2014-EX(SM) - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.K. Mishra, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 5,000/- each under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are registered under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for manufacture of cigarettes. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved from the said order, appellants are before me. 4. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, advocate appeared before me and submits that after introduction of Central Excise Rules, 2002, there is no provision to maintain the records as cited therein although the appellants are maintaining statutory records and filing their ER 1 return regularly. Therefore, the appellants are not to be penalized as penalties imposed by lower authorities. He further submits that as per Rule 94 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the provisions was there to maintain the records as mentioned hereinabove but after introduction of new Rules, the said provisions was taken away. Therefore, they are not required to maintain such records, therefore, penalty is not imposable. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the close of the month to which the return relates. 8. As per Rule 12 of the said Rules, the appellants are required to file monthly returns as specified by the notification but no notification has been issued to maintain the records as desired by the lower authorities in the impugned order. Moreover, I have gone through the earlier Rules also i.e. Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per these Rules, Rule 94 requires that appellants are required to maintain such records but there is no provision of maintaining such records as cited by the lower authorities in the impugned order under new Rules. Therefore I hold that penalties are not imposable on the appellants and impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
