TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on the appellant for violation of the procedures contained in the Rules. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - E/2910/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20325/2016 - Dated:- 12-5-2016 - SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Pradyumna G.H, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagdish, AR ORDER Per: S.S. GARG This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.09.2012 whereby he partially allowed the appeal by upholding the Order-in-Original but reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,70,368/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight only) imposed by the Order-in-Original to ₹ 55,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 20.09.2012 held that the appellants were required to pay duty in cash on each consignment during the period of default and the payment utilizing cenvat credit was not proper and thereby upheld the decision of the original authority but the penalty was reduced to the tune of ₹ 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only). Hence the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a fact that the appellants have defaulted in the demand of duty to the tune of ₹ 4,28,085/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Eighty Five only) during March 2009 and utilize the cenvat credit of ₹ 1,70,368/- (Rupee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is also not legal and proper. He further submitted that the original authority had imposed penalty equivalent to duty amount of ₹ 1,70,368/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight only) invoking Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 but the said penalty was ordered to be reduced to ₹ 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) by the appellate authority in the impugned order. He further submitted that invoking Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules in the present case is not proper rather penalty can only be imposed under Rule 27 as held by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
