2008 (1) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules. The Commissioner, in the impugned order No. 06/2006 dated 29.08.2006, has accepted the assessee's contention and found that there is no violation or intention to evade duty and has dropped the demand for duty. However, he felt that they have not carried out the statutory obligation cast on them under Rule 19 of CE Rules. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice was with regard to non-furnish .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s dropped. He clearly noted in his order that there was no question of raising notice under section 11A of the Act has arisen. Further, he found that the proposal for penal action under Rule 25 of CE Rules is justified, as in respect of 3 ARE-1s, there was a failure to carry out the statutory obligation cast on them. Hence, he proceeded to impose penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J159(SC). He also relies on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Balakrishna Industries - 2006 (201) ELT 325(SC) wherein it has been held that penalty is not imposable when differential duty is not leviable. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. HMM Ltd. - 1995 (76) ELT 497(SC). He also relies on the following Tribunal rulings. (i) P.G.R. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X