9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty and within that upper limit, the adjudicating authority has discretion to determine the quantum of penalty - there is no provision in this rule that penalty cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/- - therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- is justified - E/443/2007-SM - 1630/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 11-12-2008 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri S.K. Pan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. and penalty on Shri Ajay Jain the respondent in this case under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29-8-2005 while confirming duty demand imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Premier Ispat Ltd. under Section 25 of Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on respondent Shri Ajay Jain. No penalty was imposed on M/s. Premier I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Rules is Rs. 10,000/- and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- which is below the minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/- prescribed under Rule 26, is not correct. 4. I have carefully gone through the submissions of both the sides and perused the records. Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules reads as under:- "Any person who acquires possession of, or is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be imposed under this rule cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/-. The Revenue's contention would have been correct if (sic) (in) the Rule 26, in the place of the word "not exceeding" the words "equal to" been there. In view of this, I find no merit in the Revenue's appeal and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
