9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng one penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 and another higher penalty without specifying provision therefore. Held that- the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under this provision of law. The higher penalty of Rs. 1,22,01 6/- imposed by the said authority was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. In the result, there will be no penalty on such the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost of repairs. It was only upon receipt of a letter dated 28-4-2007 of the customer that the appellant realised their mistake. On 31-5-2007, they paid the differential amount of duty in respect of the goods which were cleared to the customer on 8-2-2007. They also paid interest thereon for the period of delay. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued by the department, wherein a penalty was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Rules, 2002." 2. Against the above penalties, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and latter vacated the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- after holding that no penalty could be imposed twice under the same provision of law. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the penalty of Rs. 1,22,016/-maintained by the lower appellate authority. 3. After h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 25. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded his order thus : "The order in original is modified to this extent only." In effect, the appellate authority misunderstood the purport of the order of adjudication and created havoc by modifying it. 4. Only one penalty was proposed against the assessee in the show-cause notice and that was under Rule 25. The original authority imposed a penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
