2008 (1) TMI 595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvocate, for the Appellant. Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The challenge in all the four appeals is to penalties of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 75 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs imposed by the original Adjudicating Authority in terms of the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground of the delay in discharging duty liabi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d payment of duties, proceedings were initiated against them for imposition of penalties in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which resulted in passing of the impugned orders. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri S.R. Dixit appearing for the appellant fairly concedes the delay in depositing the duties but submits that the same has occurred on account of the fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r in depositing duties late and as such high imposition of penalty is justified. 5. We find that Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for imposition of penalties which shall not exceed the duty on the excisable goods, when there is contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d). We find that clause (a) of Rule 25 refers to removal of e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mittedly the excisable goods were entered in records, cleared on Central Excise invoices and duty was also paid subsequently, though belatedly along with interest. As such, the said clause (d) is also not attracted. In such a scenario, the invocation of Rule 25 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty is not in accordance with the law. 6. We find that above view is also suppor....