TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of reduction of penalty to Rs. 2,000/- is set aside - order of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty is restored - appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed - E/3658/2005-SM(BR) - 65/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 15-10-2007 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) [Order].-1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 427-C.E./ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 2,500/-. The Revenue filed this appeal against reduction of penalty. 3. Heard ld. JDR on behalf of the Revenue. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. . 5. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously reduced the penalty as the penalty was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Act, 2002, which suggests minimum penalty of Rs.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is the minimum amount required to be imposed under the said rules. The Tribunal in the case of Sarjoo Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) held that penalty of Rs.5,000/- prescribed in Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 would constitute minimum penalty is required to be imposed. 7 . In view of the above, I find that the reduction of the penalty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
