9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Central Excise Rules was not justified in the circumstances of the case. Further, in absence of suppression, misstatement, collusions etc., penal provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be invoked, justifying imposition of penalty. It is an admitted fact on record that the authorities below have not specifically observed that non-payment of duty within the prescribed time limit is attributable to the ingredients mentioned in the said rule. Thus, I am of the view that imposition of penalty under Rule 25 is not legal and proper. - there is no substance in the impugned order, justifying imposition of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/54553/2014-E(SM) - - - Dated:- 23-6-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty, in terms of Section 11A(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. She further submits that since there is no element of suppression, misstatement, fraud, collusion etc. on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government Revenue, invocation of Rule 25 is not justified for imposition of penalty. In this context Ld. Advocate relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj). 3. Per contra the Ld. Jt. CDR Sh. Pramod Kumar appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact that the duty amount in question a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which shall not exceed the duty on the excisable goods, when there is contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d). The Tribunal found that clause (a) of Rule 25 refers to removal of excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules. When goods were removed, no excise duty was required to be paid at that point of time. As such, it cannot be said that the contravention of the nature mentioned in the said clause has been committed by the assessee. Clause (b) is to the effect that the manufacturer does not account for any excisable goods manufactured by him. The said clause does not stand contravened inasmuch as the goods were duly reflected in the statutory records. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty has not been levied, or paid or short-levied or sort-paid or the refund is erroneously granted by reasons of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement of suppression of facts. If these ingredients are not present, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be levied. Since, Rule 25 can be invoked subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, as natural corollary, the ingredients mentioned in Section 11AC are also required to be considered while determining the question of levying of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. 6. In view of the settled position of law, there is no substance in the impugned order, justifying imposition of penalty. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
