2017 (3) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Associates are in appeal against order-in-appeal no. PII/RKS/3/2012 dated 2^nd January 2012 which, while upholding the rest of the order of original authority, reduced the penalty under rule 25(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 to Rs. 1,00,000/- from an amount of Rs. 3,51,941/-. 2. Appellant is a registered assessee engaged in manufacture of 'motor vehicle parts' and the proceedings relate to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Of the liability of Rs. 1,00,727/- for February 2010, appellant paid Rs. 87,545/- through debit of CENVAT credit and paid the remaining amount along with interest only on 23^rd March 2010 and hence not subject to the rigours of rule 8(3A) for the month of March 2010. Of the dues of Rs. 1,23,612/-, appellant discharged Rs. 1,12,250/- by debit of CENVAT credit on due date but was derelict in p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the penalty. 5. Appellant claims that financial difficulty was the cause of lapse on their part and that, for contravention of rule 8(3A), penalty is imposable only under rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not under rule 25. It was also contended that the penalty is too harsh. 6. None appeared for appellant. Heard Learned Authorized Representative who reiterated the contents of the i....