2010 (2) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri S.K. Bhaskar and I. Baig, DRs, for the Respondent. ORDER Ld. Counsel, Sri Priyadarshi Manish submits that although very small amount is involved in this case it involves an important question of law calling for answer by Tribunal. According to him Rule 5 of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 has no provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ger interest of public. 2. While Ld. DR, Shri S.K. Bhaskar argues that since penalty amount is very small, appeal should be dismissed, Ld. DR, Shri Baig submits that stay may be granted and appeal may be taken up for hearing in due course. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. There is no doubt that very small amount is involved in this case. But when an important question of la....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion attracting Sections 11AC and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. This particular case does not throw light whether Section 11AC and Section 11AB were invoked for any remedial measure for breach of Rule 5 as aforesaid. It may be stated that penalty proceedings are quasi criminal in nature. Show cause notice should provide foundation for civil and evil consequence of law and should categorically b....