9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I H.K.THAKUR. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.28/HAL/2012 dated 05.06.2012 under which Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata, as First Appellate Authority, upheld the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Shri Deepro Sen (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the period of dispute is fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion for filing a revised ER-1 return. In reply to a specific query of the Bench the Ld.Advocate also could not bring to the notice of the Bench any provisions under which such revised ER-1 can be filed. 3. Shri K.Chowdhury, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is no provision for filing a revised ER-1 return and Appellant was required to pay duty payments calculated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts own assessment done in the ER-1 and does not pay the entire duty assessed by him. Instead Appellant filed a revised ER-1 return to argue that duty payable was actually less than what was calculated in the ER-1 return. No provision of the Central Excise law has been brought to the notice of the Bench whether any such adjustment can be done in the case of Central Excise duty payment. In the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority upon the Appellant under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and upheld by First Appellate Authority, is required to be set aside. 8. In view of the above Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed only to the extent of imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as indicated in Para-7 above. (Operative part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
