TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. [Order]. - The appellants are challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant's firm is 100% EOU and sought clearance of their finished goods in DTA with effect from April 2005. Thereafter the appellants started clearing their goods in DTA followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority confirmed the confiscation and allowed the said goods to be redeemed on payment of fine and penalties (equivalent to duty) under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on the appellant and penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on the Dy. General Manager of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said imposition of penalties, the appellants are before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of any mens rea, no penalty is leviable on the appellants. He further submits that in this case, no specific provision of Rule 25 has been prescribed in the show cause notice for imposing penalty on the appellants firm, hence no penalty can be levied on the appellant. To support the contention, he placed reliance on Amrit Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise, UP. - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which is not in the case of judgement relied upon by the learned Advocate. Further he submitted that the conduct of the appellants says that they are having mala fide intention of not paying duty in time, hence the provision of Rules 25 and 26 ibid are attractable to this case. 5. Heard and considered. 6. The facts that the appellant....