2008 (6) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority. The original authority had imposed on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002(CER) and another penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of CER. The appellant challenges these penalities and argues that the penalties have been unju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal authority had entered a clear finding that the assessee being a new unit had committed certain omissions in relation to the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 43/2001. He had also found that the assessee had only committed some technical breaches. It is submitted that the penalties therefore deserved to be vacated. 2. Ld. SDR submits that the appellants had not challenged the lia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods by a merchant manufacturer without following the proper procedure. There is no finding that the assessee dealt with the raw materials procured under Notification No. 43/2001 with an intent to evade payment of duty. The offence found against the appellant is that it had not followed the procedure for movement of raw material to the job worker or for export of finished goods procured under No....