2009 (11) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 353-C.E./ 2004 dated 27-10-04 by which the penalty to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh out of penalty of Rs. 44,71,902/- (which was imposed by the original authority) was sustained. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : The appellant is a manufacturer of fe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said consignments knowing clearly that they were removed by M/s. IOC Mathura without observing the procedure set out in Concessional Rate of Duty Rules, 2001 and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 44,71,902/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the charge of violation and held that appellant has received the consignment without the requisite annexure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2001. He submits that the purpose for which Chapter X procedure of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed is identical to the purpose for which the Central Excise (Removal of Goods on Concessional Rate of duty), 2001 has been introduced. They have substantially fulfilled the conditions. If there was any violation in removal, it is at the end of IOC. As a recipient they have merely received the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were received during the period of transition from Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The appellant claims that the procedure followed in terms of erstwhile Chapter X procedure was akin to the new procedure to be followed under Notification 34/200l and omissions, if any, were technical in nature. It is also claimed that the omissions, if any, in not clearing the goods w....