2011 (8) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Rules, 2002. As per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, appellant was required to discharge duty liability on such clearances as prescribed under the Rules. Appellant could not do so. On perusal of monthly returns, Revenue authorities felt that the appellant having not paid duty liability for the clearances made during March and April 2002, issued show cause notice. Appellant contested show cause notice only on the ground that in the month of May their plant was shut down and they were facing serious financial hardship. They also pleaded that they have paid the entire amount of duty and interest thereof, subsequently and requested for leniency in imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority did not acce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficers, this could not have been noticed. As such, he submits that penalty imposed on appellants is correct and need not interfered with.   6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that there is no dispute as regards discharge of duty liability along with interest for the clearances made by the appellant during the month of March and April 2002. It is also not disputed that this duty liability and interest was discharged by the appellant on 10.11.2006.   7. This raises a question whether the appellant needs to be penalised under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by lower authorities.   8. It is also seen from the record....