2010 (1) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tes the grounds of appeal. 3. The background leading to filing of these two appeals is worth recording. The original authority, in a case involving demand of duty of Rs. 16,821/- against M/s. Jai Hind Bidi Co. besides confirming the demand of duty and interest imposed penalty of Rs. 16,821/- under Section 11AC on the said firm and in addition, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on Shri Mohd. Islam, proprietor of M/s. Jai Hind Bidi Co. under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 2000/- on Shri Govind Das authorised signatory of M/s. Jai Hind Bidi Co. under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner took up the order for review under Section 35E(2) and directed filling of appeal to the Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand whichever is greater", which indicates that the penalty should not exceed the amount of duty involved or Rs. l0,000/- whichever is greater. No word or phrase has been used to indicate that the quantum of penalty mentioned in said Rule 26 is minimum or mandatory. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that under the said Rule 26, only maximum limit of penalty has been prescribed, below which, the quantum of penalty is discretionary & without any minimum limit. I observe that under the circumstances of the case, the Adjudicating Authority has correctly used his discretion in the circumstances of the case, I find no justification in enhancement of penalty." 4.4 In spite of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o thousand rupees], whichever is greater. [(2) Any person, who issues - (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.]" 6.2 The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Bhopal v. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 348 = 2008 (10) S.T....