2018 (6) TMI 3 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 27 of CER, 2002 -Belated filing of monthly returns in ER-1 - violation of Rule 12 (1) and Rule 12 (5) of CER, 2002, and Rule 9 (7) of CCR, 2004 - It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty - Held that - This aspect needs to be verified by the adjudicating authority as to the filing of manual returns. If the same is in time then that proves the bonafides as claimed by the appellant even with regard to its reasons for delay in filing ER-1 electronically and requires no penalty - appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues: Levy of penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The appellant contested the penalty imposed for allegedly filing monthly returns in ER-1 belatedly, citing compliance with manual returns in time. The adjudicating authority upheld the penalty, leading to an unsuccessful appeal before the Commissioner. The appellant argued that filing manual returns timely should negate the penalty for delayed e-return submission. The Ld. AR supported the lower authorities' decisions. After hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, the Tribunal emphasized the need to verify the timely filing of manual returns. If confirmed, it would demonstrate the appellant's good faith, potentially invalidating the penalty solely based on electronic filing delay. Consequently, the adjudicating authority was directed to investigate the manual returns' submission timeline. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes based on the above directives.