9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty is liable to penalty - there is no justification for imposition of penalty under the said provision of Rule 25. In any event, there is contravention of Rules. Therefore, a general penalty of ₹ 5,000/- may be imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2002. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 is set aside and a penalty of ₹ 5,000.00 is imposed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravention of Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2003 was issued proposing demand of duty along with interest and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating authority appropriated the Central Excise duty as paid by the appellant along with interest and also imposed penalty of ₹ 2,55,000.00 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant filed this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This fact only shows that the issue was not free from doubt and has been subject matter of litigation. In such case, no malafide can be attributed to the assessee, so as to invoke the penal provisions against them. As such, I find no justifiable reason to impose penalty upon the appellant. The same is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. 5. Rule 25 of the Rules 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
