9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egation against the appellants that they have not paid the duty with any mala fide intentions - penalty under Rule 25 is not leviable against the appellants - liable for penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal partly allowed. - E/1941/2008-SM(BR) - 1201/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 21-10-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Arya Bhatt, Advocate, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that in this case, there is no allegation against the appellants that they have delayed the payment with reason of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, wilful mis-statement or contravention of any law with intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, no penalty is leviable on the appellant. He also relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid the duty in time as prescribed in the law. Hence, they have contravened the provisions of law for which they are liable for penal action. As the penalty has been imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the penalty under Rule 25 is leviable subject to the provisions of Section 11AC and in this case, there is no allegation against the appellants that they have not paid the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
