TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. Negi, A.R. JUDGMENT Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; Even though there are three appeals, issue involved is common. Hence appeals are taken together and a common order is being passed. The facts of the case in brief are that all the three appellants defaulted in monthly payment of duties during the period from October 2007 to March 2008 beyond thirty days. While being in default, appellants cleared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....versed modvat credit would again be credit to their modvat account. In such cases, Tribunal in a number of matters has held that the penalty to be imposed is under the provisions of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, which attracts maximum of ₹ 5000/-. Reference in this regard can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd vs. CCE Rajkot - 2008 (225) ELT 395 (Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned order has been passed wherein the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd and Shaligram Laminators Pvt. Ltd. (supra) have been distinguished and held to be inapplicable in view of the fact that in those cases a view was taken that Rule 25 of the Rules would not be applicable and only Rule 27 would be applicable for penalty because the duty was not payable at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by both the sides. From the above reproduced portion of the Tribunal order it can be seen that there was a specific direction in the remand order that in respect of penalties, the matter was required to be considered in the light of the law declared in the case of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd and Shaligram Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Since the Tribunal order has not been challenged in the higher forum, it....