9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty, maintenance of records, filing of return etc - Held that: is only a procedural lapse which was committed by the respondents under bona fide belief and for such technical lapse - Thus, reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/- The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - E/1787/2008(SM)(BR) - 1282/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 4-11-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Hamant Bajaj, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. Revenue is in appeal for enhancement of penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturing Aluminium circles and availed compounded levy scheme with an option to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efault committed by them was that they have not filed ER 1 return in time which is a procedural lapse under bona fide belief. He also submitted that the Commissioner has dealt with the issue in detail and he has rightly reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, the impugned order is to be upheld. 4. Heard and considered. 5. I have gone through the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mohinder Steel Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that applicability of general provisions in Central Excise Act and Rules are excluded in case of compounded levy of duty. It was also observed that compounded levy scheme is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which also was due to bona fide belief of the appellants that they had filed the requisite return in form of Appendix II. I thus hold that non-filing of monthly return is mere technical or procedural lapse which could have been avoided by timely intervention of or advice from the department. 6. I have seen the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that this is only a procedural lapse which was committed by the respondents under bona fide belief and for such technical lapse, he has reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the penalty. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
