9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal and Suyash Agrawal, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel for the department and Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal and Shri Suyash Agrawal as counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is against the order of the Tribunal dated 14-3-2008. The three questions have been fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Whether the CESTAT order dated 19-5-2008 allowing the Assessees Appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed for late depositing of penalty legally sustainable on merits of the case." 3. Penalty was imposed on the respondent under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the allegation that respondent failed to discharge duty liability under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal by the respondent which has been allowed by order dated 14th March, 2008. The Tribunal in paragraph 3 of the order stated as follows : "3. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Condor Power Products Pt. Ltd. v. CCE, Faridabad reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T 137 held that penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed for delay of payment of duty under Rule 8 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it was not a case of intend to evade the payment of duty. The Tribunal has further noticed that respondent disclosed its duty liability in the return. The disclosure of duty liability in the return and payment of duty along with interest before the issuance of show cause notices cannot invite penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules in the facts of the present case. Cogent reasons have been given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
