9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period January 2008 to March 2008, albeit through RG23 A Part II i.e. CENVAT account - It is also not in dispute that the appellant had enough balance in RG23A Part II to discharge duty liability - At the same time, we also find that debiting RG 23A Part II was no good as discharge of duty, but there is no default of payment of duty, which is found in this case as the appellant had not pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for violation of discharge of duty liability as amended under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Ld.Counsel outlining the brief facts of the case submits that the appellant had defaulted payment of duty for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt current. 4.1 It is his submission that the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority imposed equivalent amount of penalty which is not warranted under such situation. He drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samvid Engineers Vs. CCE Ahmedabad being Final Order No.A/927-928/WZB/AHD/2010, dt.14.7.10. 5. Ld.SDR drew our attention to the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debiting RG 23A Part II was no good as discharge of duty, but there is no default of payment of duty, which is found in this case as the appellant had not paid duty liability for the month of November 2007. The appellant has rectified the error by debiting the amount through PLA towards discharge of duty liability. We consider the error of debiting the CENVAT account during the period January 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
