9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 11-3-05, by which the Penalties, which were imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondents were reduced to Rs. 5,000/- as against the penalties equal to the amount of delayed duty payment. 2. The adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate in these matters. 4. The appellant Commissioner on the basis of the material on record, came to a finding that the clearances were duly reflected in the monthly returns and there was no intention to evade duty on the part of the assessee. It was, therefore, held that no penalty could be imposed under Rule 25 on the ground that there was intention to evade payment of duty which in fact do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths and had shown the clearances and amounts of duty payable. On this basis, the appellant Commissioner has rightly concluded that no malafide intention of duty evasion could be attributed to the assessee. Under Rule 25, it is, inter alia, provided that penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
