2011 (11) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar, JDR for the Respondent Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench): After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.5,000/-, I proceed to decide the appeal itself  inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass. The appellant is manufacturer of spring and exporting the same against letter of undertaking. The revenue's allegation is that they did not submit the statement in A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssued in terms of Rule 31 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and any contravention of the same has to be treated as contravention of the Central Excise Rules. As such, he has accordingly reduced the penalty of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- by taking a lenient view. 3. I have seen the provisions of  Rule 31 which empowers the Boards or Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner to issue  instruction .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in this regard is drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court  decision in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa reported as [1998 ELT (J 159)]. As such, the penalty imposed to the extent of Rs. 5000/- in terms of  Rules 27 is not justified. The same is accordingly, set aside and appeal allowed  with consequential relief. 5. Stay petition as also appeal  gets disposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X