TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Commissioner, (AR), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal by Revenue is, whether the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) - as per Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is subject to provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, simultaneous penalty under Rule 25 of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1AC of the Act & Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002) could not be made basis by Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside penalty in toto. Further, reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Sanden Vikas India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -IV reported at 2004 (176) E.L.T. 708 (Tri. - Delhi) wherein it was held - rejecting the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ld. Consultant for the respondent-assessee relies on the impugned order and the cross objections, which are in support of the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, I find from the plain language of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which reads - (i) Subject to the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aler, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods, in respect of which, any contravention of the nature referred to, in clause A or clause B or clause C or clause D, has been committed. 5. Thus, from the plain reading of the Rules, it is evident that for the purpose of penalty not only the default as mentioned in Rule 25 of Central Excise R....