9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Verma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Shri M. Pushkarna, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants M/s. Kundan International (India) are not challenging the duty amounting to Rs. 78,624/- confirmed against them in respect of Gutka manufactured by them and cleared from the factory premises without payment of duty and seized by the Central Excise Officers at Patna; that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty penalty is imposable under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; that interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is also chargeable as the duty was not paid when it was due, i.e. at the time of removal of the goods. 3.I have considered the submissions of both the sides. Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for imposition of penalty when any manufacturer re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending goods which are liable to confiscation the person concerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in the Rules. It is difficult to accept the arguments of the Appellants that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. The High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
