9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Goods) Rules, 2001 has imposed an obligation on the assessee to give information regarding receipt of subject goods and maintain records. That Rule does not encompass a situation not embodied therein - not only stay application is to be allowed but also appeal should be disposed of without keeping the same pending when the law does not provide further scope for debate for imposition of penalty - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under that Rule which speaks about breach of law and consequences thereof. In absence of opportunity of rebuttal under respective Rule which is considered to be foundation for the purpose of levy of penalty, no penalty can be imposed. He further submits that Rule 27 has not conferred jurisdiction on the Authority to resort to Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh examination of scheme of Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 is necessary. Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 has imposed an obligation on the assessee to give information regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g beyond that. 5. It may be stated that Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is certainly a residuary Rule to take care of breach of law for which no penalty is specifically provided under statute itself. Such case is only governed by Rule 27. Rule 27 does not provide any insight to bring within its fold any breach of provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
