9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement order of original authority directing assessee to seek approval. Certificate issued in 1994 and renewed in 2004 valid for operation. No ex post facto approval required in the instant case. Penalty unreasonable. - E/1505/2008-SM(BR) - 502/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 6-5-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri Kapil Vaish , C.A. , for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 25-C.E./Lko/2008 dated 28-2-2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The peculiar facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant is a manufacturer of pesticides falling under Chapter Heading 3808.10 of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of the provisions of the Notification No. 36/01-C.E. read with Rule 9(iii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.The original authority vide order dated 28-8-2007 imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In addition, he also issued the following directions :- "In view of my finding above, I direct to M/s. Swaroop Chemicals (P) Ltd., Chinhat, Lucknow initiated vide show cause notice No. 07/off/lko-II/07 dated 10-5-07 to comply with the provisions of clause 3 of Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for seeking ex post facto approval of the Commissioner, Central Excise as per procedure laid down. I impose penalty of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a high-handed exercise as no change in facts have been brought out in the show cause notice. The original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- and issued direction for seeking ex post facto approval by the Commissioner. It is not the case of the Department that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions for the combined registration. The disputed issue was their failure to seek ex post facto approval of the Commissioner consequent to coming into effect in Central Excise Rules, 2001. This objection has been raised much after Central Excise Rules, 2001 has been repealed and the Central Excise Rules, 2002 came into force and after granting revised registration certificate in 2004. If the Assistant Commissioner felt that ex-post facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
