9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty in the cases for contravention where no other penalty prescribed in the CER, 2002 or in the Act. The contravention for which the penalty has been imposed, is only a procedural violation and subsequently, the required return had been filed. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 2949/07-SM - final order no. 1503/2009-SM (BR) - Dated:- 17-11-2009 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member Technical Sh. T.R.Rustagi, Adv. for Appellant Sh. S.K.Bhaskar, Authorised Departmental Representative(DR) For Respondent ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar Rule 9A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable for contravention of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He also pleaded that non-filing of the ER-5 returns is merely procedural violation for which no penalty can be imposed and for this reason only, no provision has been kept in Cenvat Credit Rules for imposition of penalty in such cases. In support of this argument, he also cited the Tribunals judgment in the case of CCE, Rajkot vs Air Express Courier Services reported in 2005(182)ELT.409 wherein the Tribunal held that delay in filing the returns being a procedural lapse, penalty is not imposable and also the Tribunals judgment in the case of Jak Exim vs CCE, Mumbai reported in 2006(204)ELT.70 wherein the Tribunal held that penalty under Rule 25(1) of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules where no other penalty has been prescribed. In fact in Cenvat Credit Rule,2002, there is no provision analogous to Rule 27 of Cenvat Credit Rule which provide for imposition of penalty in the cases for contravention where no other penalty prescribed in the Central Excise Rules,2002 or in the Act. Moreover, I also find that the contravention for which the penalty has been imposed, is only a procedural violation and subsequently, the required return had been filed. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Order dictated in the open Court. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
