9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have suppressed facts in order to evade payment of Cess. On being pointed out, they had paid the Cess. It is argued by learned counsel, that the delay occurred due to financial hardships, the instalments due to the banks, payment of wages etc., There was no intention to evade payment of Cess. The penalty imposed is harsh and unwarranted is set aside - appeal allowed in part. - E/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel Ms. P. Kanthi Visalakshi appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the appellants are confining the arguments to the imposition of penalties only. They have paid the Cess demand. She argued that though in the show-cause notice it is proposed to impose penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, there is no all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the penalty imposed is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellants have argued only on the penalty imposed. The authorities below have imposed penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand is only with respect to Tea Cess for the period Jun.'13 to Dec.'13. On perusal of the show-cause notice, I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
