9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision in case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS Versus SAURASHTRA CEMENT LTD. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] penalty could not be levied under Rule 25 of the Rules and for the alleged default, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Rules. - ST/464/12 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2012 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J Appearance: For the Appellant: Shri R. Arumug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants failed to pay duty within 30 days from the date of due date, therefore, as per Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, they are required to pay excise duty of each consignment at the time of removal without utilizing CENVAT credit on 4.6.2010. Therefore, by the impugned order, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed and a penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71 (Guj.) and it has been decided that penalty under Rule 27 only can be imposed. Therefore, relying on the above said decision which has followed the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.), the Tribunal held that in these circumstances, penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
