2008 (8) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent M/s. Devplast Ltd. made a request to decide the application on merits. 2. The Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the final order whereby appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected on the ground that adjudicating authority has not invoked the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, therefore, no merit in the contention of the Revenue that minimum penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules. In the final order, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the ground that under Rule 25 minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee. The contention of the Revenue is also that assessee is liable for penalty under Rule 25 of rules. I find that the adjudicating authority has not invoked the Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and Commissioner (Appeals) had only taken in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the Revenue was whether the unaccounted goods found in the factory are liable for confiscation and assessee is liable for penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules has not gone into this issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) simply held that there is no merit regarding quantum of penalty under Rule 25. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone against this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X