2017 (12) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt ORDER Per Anil Choudhary : The issue in this appeal by the revenue is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified indeleting the penalty imposed under rule 15 of CCR 2004. 2. The brief facts are that:- (a) During the scrutiny of Appellants ER-1 returns it was observed that the payment of excise duty was not in the terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the payments....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 20,42,692/- should not be recovered from them along with interest in terms of Rule 14 of the Act (ii) Mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of Act read with Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 should not be imposed upon them and also a penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 should not be imposed. (d) The said Show Cause Notice was decided vide the order in original holding tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owever in the instant case when the show cause Notice itself says that the wrong doings of the appellants were noticed from the scrutiny of ER-1 returns submitted by the Appellant it leaves no ground for the department to made the charge of suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty on the part of Appellant, because if it was so, the figures would have not reflected in monthly ER-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ordingly on question of penalty I do not agree with the Adjudicating Authority and hence the same is waived off. 4. Being aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal on the ground that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have not appreciated the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Plasweave Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Triunelveli CCE, 2007 (211) E L T 27 (Tri. Chennai), wherein it was held that - having considere....