9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : None ORDER Per. H.K. Thakur :- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 104-CE/ ALLD/2006 dated 07/09/2006 under which OIO No. 36 (MP)/2005 dated 16/06/2005, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, has been upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Under OIO dated 16/06/2005 Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- upon the respondent under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 can be imposed less than Rs. 10,000/-, as imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). For better appreciation of the issue, the provisions of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR) and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER) are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer :- (a) Removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notification issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him ; or (c) engages in the manufacture under section 6 of the act ; or (d) contravenes any of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions is Rs. 10,000/-. Accordingly, it is held that the penalty of Rs. 1,000/-; imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, readwith Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals); was not correct. In view of the above, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
