9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arge duty liability. And that debiting RG23A 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. The error of debiting the CENVAT account during the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. After hearing both sides on the Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we take up the appeal for disposal, after allowing the Stay Petition filed for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of penalty. 3. Ld.Counsel would submit that during the period January 2010, April 2010 and May 2010, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /WZB/ AHD/2011, dt.19.08.2011, will squarely apply. 4. Ld.D.R., reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case and undisputed facts are correctly stated by the ld.Counsel. We find that the issue was decided by this Bench vide Final order dt.19.08.2011. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account during the period January 2008 to March 2008 as mere technical lapse and reduce the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority to Rs.5,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Following the above decision, we find that adjudicating authority s Order-in-Original, which imposes penalty of Rs.60,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, needs to be restored as the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
