2010 (10) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nimum penalty has been prescribed under that section - As per the decision of tribunal CCE, Kanpur v. Ajay Jain (2008 -TMI - 33637 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) wherein this Tribunal while confirming the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the identical worded provisions held that there is no description of the minimum penalty to be imposed. - Held that: there is no minimum penalty pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kharal : Rs. 500/- Shri Sant Bahadur Kharka : Rs. 500/- Shri Naveen Limbu : Rs. 500/- Shri Top Bahadur : Rs. 500/- Shri Prahlad Thapa : Rs. 500/- Shri Shankar Singh Dhami : Rs. 500/- Shri Rajesh Upadhyay : Rs. 500/- Shri Abdul Jahoor : Rs. 3000/- 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the minimum penalty should be Rs. 5,000/- in each case as per the provisions of Section 112 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay Kumar Agrawal reported in [2009 (240) E.L.T. 216 (Tri.-Del.)] and CCE, Kanpur v. Ajay Jain [2009 (237) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein this Tribunal while confirming the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the identical worded provisions held that there is no description of the minimum penalty to be imposed. 9. I have gone through the above cited decisions and is of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X