9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER According to show cause notice, during the scrutiny of the ER-1 returns of assessee, it was noticed that the assessee have not paid duty for the months of January, 2009 and March, 2009 amounting to Rs. 1,12,615/- (BED - Rs. 1,09,231/-, Education Cess - Rs. 2236, Higher Education Cess - Rs. 1148/-) and Rs. 40,711/- (BED - Rs. 39,489/-, Education Cess - Rs. 799/-, Higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be imposed only under Rule 27 and not under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the absence of any mis-declaration or suppression of facts or fraud, collusion etc. by the assessee. He submits that the assessee is a small scale unit and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- for default of Rs. 1.5 lakhs is abnormally high and may be reduced in view of the High Court's decision that penalty under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not been paid. Therefore, I agree with the view submitted by learned AR that as far as penalty is concerned, in this case, Rule 25 has been correctly invoked. As regards the liability of Rs. 53,768/-, there is no dispute and learned counsel has fairly agreed that they are required to deposit the amount in cash in view of the decision of the High Court. 5. In the light of above discussion, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
