2012 (10) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mandatory for certain category of assessees and there is no dispute that the appellant’s unit falls in that category. There is no dispute that the appellant were required to file ER-I Return electronically. Hence, the failure to pay duty electronically and file return electronically would attract penalty under Rule 27. The Rule 27 however provides for penalty which may extend to Rs. 5,000/-. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant for each month for not making the payment of duty electronically and another penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for each month for not filing ER-I Return electronically. Accordingly, the total penalty imposed by the order passed by the Superintendent was Rs. 40,000/- . On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Superintendent was upheld by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd for each offence is excessive. He while accepting that there was failure on the part of the appellant to make payment of duty and filing of ER-I Return by electronic mode, pleaded for lenient view in imposing penalty. 4. Ms. Shweta Bector, ld. DR defended the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X