9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by the assessee challenging the penalty imposed against the assessee under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The only ground canvassed at the time of hearing of this appeal is that in the show-cause notices issued in the matter of imposition of penalty only violation of Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the imposition of penalty, further appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after evaluating the matter found that imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not appropriate as mala fide intention in the matter of delayed payment of duty was not made out. 6. However, as the statutory period for payment of duty was not complied with, it was held by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unishment under Rule 25. On an appeal being filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) by order Annexure A-4 on 31st July, 2008 allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty from Rs. 7,42,216/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 9. Again, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, now when the matter was taken at the instance of the petitioner in an appeal filed before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dice caused was demonstrated or established before us nor is any illegality pointed in the matter of imposing general penalty under Rule 27. Admittedly, the appellant had committed a delay in deposit of the duty and if the duty was not deposited within the stipulated period, the general penalty under Rule 27 could be imposed and in doing so, as no illegality is committed and no breach of statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
