2014 (6) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER The allegation against the respondent is that during a total of 19 months, they did not pay the duty electronically through internet banking even though the duty payable each month was more than Rs. 50 lacs and in view of this in terms of proviso to Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 they were required to deposit the duty electronically through ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the ex-party. 3. Sh. Devender Singh, learned Jt. CDR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and emphasized that in terms of provisions of Rule 27, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- must be imposed for each violation. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Jt. CDR and have perused the records. The fact of failure to deposit duty during 19 months thr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty payment is Rs. 50 lacs or above, he is required to deposit the duty electronically through internet banking and violation to do so would invite penalty under Rule 27 according to which the contraventions in respect of which no penalty has been prescribed elsewhere, would attract penalty not exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. It is clear that Rs. 5,000/- is the maximum penalty and Adjudicating Authority ....