9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; that basing on the above, a SCN dated 18-7-2008 was issued to the appellant directing them to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules should not be imposed; that on adjudication, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed for contravention of 3rd proviso to Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 2. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has come with the present appeal along with stay petition wherein he has, inter alia, contended as under :- (i) that the appellant had explained in detail that the facility was not available with their bank viz. Dena Bank, Chiplun Branch till 15-10-2007 on which date the letter from Dena Bank was received inviti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant company appeared before me at 11.30 AM. None appeared from the Department s side despite intimation. 3.1 During the hearing, they submitted that this is a case where their appellant failed to make payment electronically in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; that their client could not make payment electronically due to the technical problem faced by the Bank i.e. Dena Bank; that a plea was made before the adjudicating authority to enquire into the technical problem faced by the Bank, however, without enquiring into the actual problem with the Bank, the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/-; that the penalty imposed is also not correct, in as much as the maximum penalty imposable under Rule 27 is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Bank which led to non making of payment electronically. The appellant has produced a copy of letter dated 15-10-2007 from Dena Bank inviting all customers to avail E-payment facility and accordingly, it is very clear that the bank was not in a position to accommodate all their customers for making the payment electronically till 15-10-2007. The appellant further claimed that even after October, 2007, there was a problem in Dena Bank which made the appellant not making the payments electronically. But the lower authority has not commented anything on the said letter of the Bank. The record proves that the appellant was interested in making the payments electronically and because due to the circumstances beyond their control, they c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
