9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e removal or intent to evade payment of duty therefore penalty under Section 11AC or Rule 25 is not imposable - appellant’s act of delay in payment of duty does not invite invocation of Section 11AC or Rule 25. Penalty u/r 27 rightly invoked - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/87201/16 - A/85352/2018 - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follow, accordingly, respondent is liable for penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. On the other hand, Shri. Bhushan Jani, Ld. C.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that this case is only of delay in payment of monthly duty which at the most attracts interest for the delayed period, no penalty can be imposed. He placed reliance on the following judgments: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directly support their case, accordingly I am of the considered view that appellant s act of delay in payment of duty does not invite invocation of Section 11AC or Rule 25. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rightly imposed penalty under Rule 27 for contravention. I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order hence same is upheld. Appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in court on 22/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
