9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imposition of penalties of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant by the A.C. for contravention of Rules 9(1) and 173Q(1) as also Rules 43, 52A, 53(3), 57T, 173B etc. can be sustained in law or not . 2. I have given my careful consideration to all the facts on record and I have also seen the impugned order and considered the submissions of the appellants. As discussed below, I am deciding the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 5th of the following month, but filed the same only on 27-1-1998 for the months of September, 1997 to December, 1997. They did not also file the intimation regarding pre-authentication of invoices under Rule 52A and no declaration under Rule 173B was filed within one month from the date of production as prescribed under Rule 173B and they did not obtain pre-authentication of registers before bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culminated in the impugned order. The A.C. has observed that no lenient view can be taken in this regard for not adhering to the above procedures due to ignorance which could not be accepted. 4. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have stated that there was no allegation in the show cause notice that there was any clandestine removal and so there cannot be any penalty on that score and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ca Jewellers reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 103 (T). 5. I find force in the pleadings of the appellants as above. The A.C. admits that the appellant were new to Central Excise law and so it was the duty of the department to have extended their co-operation and guided the appellants for following the Central Excise procedure and then only issued notice for penal action. From the records, it app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
