9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal no. PII/RKS/3/2012 dated 2nd January 2012 which, while upholding the rest of the order of original authority, reduced the penalty under rule 25(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 to Rs. 1,00,000/- from an amount of Rs. 3,51,941/-. 2. Appellant is a registered assessee engaged in manufacture of 'motor vehicle parts' and the proceedings relate to duty liability of February to April 2010. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bruary 2010, appellant paid Rs. 87,545/- through debit of CENVAT credit and paid the remaining amount along with interest only on 23rd March 2010 and hence not subject to the rigours of rule 8(3A) for the month of March 2010. Of the dues of Rs. 1,23,612/-, appellant discharged Rs. 1,12,250/- by debit of CENVAT credit on due date but was derelict in payment of balance amount even on 30th April 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culty was the cause of lapse on their part and that, for contravention of rule 8(3A), penalty is imposable only under rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not under rule 25. It was also contended that the penalty is too harsh. 6. None appeared for appellant. Heard Learned Authorized Representative who reiterated the contents of the impugned order. 7. Appellant has admitted to utilisation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween 1st and 7th May 2010. Appellant has not evinced that this evaded duty is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, there is no reason to discountenance the assumption of the first appellate authority that the evaded amount is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. I, therefore, do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned order.
8. Appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
