9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravening the provisions of Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. For each months delay, adjudicating authority has imposed certain penalty which do not individually exceed ₹ 5,000/-. It is also observed from Para 3 of the OIO dt.14.08.2013 passed by adjudicating authority that for the period before June 2012 and after February 2013, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (AR) PER : H K Thakur 1. This stay application and the appeal have been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No.AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-350-13-14, dt.12.02.2014. 2. The issue involved in these proceedings is imposition of penalties upon the appellant under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for late filing of ER-1 returns. 3. Shri M.A. Patel (Consultant) appearing on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by this Bench in the case of Swan Laminators Pvt.Ltd. Others Vs CCE Vapi (supra). 4. Shri Alok Srivastava (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant is habitual in late filing of ER-1 returns. That the adjudicating authority has been genuine in imposing penalty for each months delay and imposition of penalty started with a penalty of ₹ 2,000/- per month in June 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 2002 cannot be imposed in excess of ₹ 5,000/-. It is observed from this relied upon case-law that the appeal in that case was decided with respect to the default in payment of monthly dues under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the proceedings of late filing of ER-1 returns under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant, and continued with late filing of returns. Therefore, imposition of penalties by the first appellate authority has been correctly upheld. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, penalties imposed upon the appellant for each months delay is reduced to ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for each months delay to the mee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
