2010 (11) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amant Bajaj, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. -  Revenue is in appeal for enhancement of penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturing Aluminium circles and availed compounded levy scheme with an option to pay the duty of excise on the basis of number of cold rolling machines installed for the purpose o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondents had not followed the provisions of Rule 12 by not filing ER 1 return in time. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay penalty for each default committed by them. As the maximum penalty prescribed under Rule 27 ibid is Rs. 5000/-, the respondents are liable to pay the penalty of Rs. 3,75,000/- as imposed by the adjudicating authority. 3. On the other hand, the learned advocate for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at applicability of general provisions in Central Excise Act and Rules are excluded in case of compounded levy of duty. It was also observed that compounded levy scheme is an alternative scheme for payment of Excise duty. Relying on the above decision and as per the applicability of Central Excise manual Chapter XII Part I para 1.1, it has been mentioned that these provisions deal with all aspects....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of as if they had filed the return prescribed under Rule 12. They have further submitted that they had filed TR-6 / GAR-7 alongwith Appendix II, however monthly ER-1 was not possible to be prepared. I also find that they were filing of Appendix II regularly to the department, which is not disputed. The payment of excise duty has also not been disputed by the department. Further, I do not find a....