9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock as on the date immediately before opting for exemption from payment of duty on final product under Notification No. 22/2007-C.E. Of course, the credit wrongly taken was subsequently reversed. However, the cause of action for penalty under Rule 15 remained. The rule does not require any mens rea to be established by the Department against the assessee for a penalty. In this view of the matter, the penalty under challenge cannot be vacated. Though, apparently, substantial relief was given to the assessee by the lower appellate authority, I am of the view that considerations like financial constraints can also have a bearing on the quantum of penalty to be imposed under Rule 15(1). The impugned order does not indicate that this aspect was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It also proposed penalty on the assessee under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules. 2. The aforesaid amounts had been paid by the assessee before issuance of the show-cause notice and such payments were proposed to be appropriated towards the demand. The proposal for penalty was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 25,000/- by the first appellate authority. The present appeal is against this penalty. 3. After a perusal of the grounds of this appeal and hearing the ld. Counsel, I note that the only grievance of the appellant is that they had f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any mens rea to be established by the Department against the assessee for a penalty. In this view of the matter, the penalty under challenge cannot be vacated. Though, apparently, substantial relief was given to the assessee by the lower appellate authority, I am of the view that considerations like financial constraints can also have a bearing on the quantum of penalty to be imposed under Rule 15(1). The impugned order does not indicate that this aspect was considered. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I reduce the quantum of penalty on the appellant to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). With this modification, the impugned order is sustained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced and dictated in open c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
