TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals), Calcutta. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Asstt. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakh under Rule 209 of the CER, 1944 for the reason that the exports effected after 17-2-1992 were without payment of duty and without any authority of law thus contravening the Central Excise Rules and Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. 3. Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty is unwarranted. Besides Rule 209 under which the penalty has been imposed is not applicable to them as they are under Self Removal Procedure. In any case since no duty has been evaded and they exported the goods under supervision of the departmental officers the quantum of penalty is too harsh. 4. Government has gone through the written and oral submissions. The short point for decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... current at the material time. 5. As for the reliance in the case law Jayant Vitamins Ltd. reported supra the same is distinguishable in that the Asstt. Commissioner is competent to decide the cases of the nature involved in revision now and hence has jurisdiction in the matter. 6. In so far as the imposition of penalty under Rule 209 of the CER, 1944 by the original authority is concerned, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
