2014 (3) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecember 2003 and March 2004 as per the provisions of Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Shri Sachin Chitnis (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that no penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed upon the appellant in view of the following cases: (i) Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Rajkot - 2008 (225) ELT 395 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (ii) Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) (iii) Commissioner Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. - 2013 (292) ELT A98 (S.C.) (iv) Condor Power Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Faridabad - 2007 (210) ELT 137 (Tri. Del.) (v) Commissioner Vs. Condor Power Product....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nation and consideration of this Court. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the respondent will attract penalty under penal provisions of Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and, that, the invocation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty, is not in accordance with law? 17. It is also to be borne in mind that Rule 25 starts with the word Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC.............              Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act deals with penalty for short levy or non-levy o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that penalty could not be levied under Rule 25 of the Rules and for the alleged default, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 5,000/- in each matter under Rule 27 of the Rules. We, therefore, hold that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises out of the orders passed by the Tribunal. 5. In view of the above, this appeal is squarely covered by the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (supra). Appellant relied upon the case la....