2011 (8) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest - there seems to be contravention of provisions of the law by the appellants and hence penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, may be attracted - though the show cause notice does not indicate imposition of penalty under Rule 27, to meet the interest of justice, we hold that appellant is to be penalised under Rule 27 - Appeal is disposed of
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. For Appellant : Shri P.G. Mehta, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 8/2006 (Ahd-I) dated 10.01.2006. 2. The re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustrial and Financial Reconstruction]. It is his submission that their factory was closed in the month of May and intimation in this regard was given to all the authorities immediately. He would submit that judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Andhra Cements Limited 207 (216) ELT 362 (A.P.) and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs. Saurashtra Cement Limited 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.), will squarely apply in this case and submits that penalty be set-aside. 5. Learned DR on the other hand would submit that appellants had contravened to provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules inasmuch so, that they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no hesitation in confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal and dismissing all these Appeals filed by the Revenue, by holding that there was no intention on the part of the respondent assessee to evade any payment of duty. It is only because of stringent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that penalty could not be levied under Rule 25 of the Rules and for the alleged default, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 5,000/- in each matter under Rule 27 of the Rules. We, therefore, hold that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises out of the orders passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X