9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/207/2008 dated 21-10-2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,93,182/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the adjudicating authority. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against the appellant who has issued Cenvatable invoices as a secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Hence the present appeal by the appellant. 3. The contention of the appellant is that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d so by upholding the impugned order. I do not subscribe to the view of the learned DR that once Rule 25 ibid is subject to provisions of Section 11AC it automatically becomes applicable in the case wherever Rule 25 ibid is invoked. On a query from the Bench as to which sub-rule has been contravened, there was no satisfactory answer to the query. So far as the decisions of the Tribunal cited by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
