9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest. – Penalty imposed by treating the goods as clandestinely removed - It appears that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the appellants. In view of the cheque being not honoured, there is removal without payment of duty as stipulated under Rule 8. However, this cannot be treated as attracting the provisions of Section 11AC with intent to evade payment of duty. At the same time, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l finally as only a small issue is involved in this appeal. 2. The appellants were required to pay basic excise duty of Rs. 6,00,900/- + Rs. 4,000/- as cess for the month of May, 2006. They have deposited the cheque with the bank under TR 6 challans and took credit in their PLA and debited the duty due. It came to light that the bank dishonoured the cheque for want of fund and after receipt of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warranted. 4. Learned Joint CDR reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He also submits that if the penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted they are liable to penalty under Rule 25 for violation of Rule 8 and that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules has also been invoked in the show cause notice issued to them. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
