9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002. Further, the penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 25 is perfectly in accordance with law and I uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/1589/10-Mum - - - Dated:- 23-10-2015 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) ORDER This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. AKP/173/NSK/2010 dated 9.6.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik, vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority and modified the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to ₹ 5,000/- under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the respondent. The respondent filed appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide stay order dated 18.5.2010 directed the respondent to pre-deposit ₹ 6,45,154/- within 10 days and the respondent vide letter dated 7.6.2010 furnished the proof of deposit and complied with the order. Thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner but modified the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 5,000/-. 4. Heard the learned AR for the appellant and perused the records. 5. The learned AR submitted that the decision of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the default committed by the respondent under Rule 8 warrants penalty under Rule 25 as held by the Additional Commissioner, or Rule 27 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that while deciding this issue, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.4 has observed as under:- 6.4 Coming to the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 in case of delayed payments, I would refer to the case law of Condor Power Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Faridabad reported at 2007(210) ELT 137 (Tri.-Del.)., wherein the Hon'ble CESTAT has upheld that penalty under Rule 25 is not imposable in case of delayed payments due to financial crisis. Relevant para 5 is reproduced, below:- 5. Since there is no dispute over the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 27 which have to be invoked-As the said provision provides for maximum penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. I reduce the penalty to ₹ 5,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty the appeal is otherwise rejected. 6.6 In case of Praveen Foundry Vs CCE Coimbatore reported at 2009 (94) RLT 717 (CESTAT-Chennai.), the CESTAT has upheld that in case of delayed payment penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of CER, 2002 and not under Rule 25. Relevant para 3 is reproduced below. 3. / have carefully considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. The violation found against the appellants arises on account of removal of excisable goods by debiting the Cenvat account instead of PLA account during the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
