2015 (4) TMI 1240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri G.R. Singh, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposing penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a depot and receiving goods from various factories and availing Cenvat credit on the basis of quantity shown in the invoices at the time of clearance by the facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....attributable to shortages, therefore, it was presumed that the difference in quantity would have been cleared clandestinely and that the said credit would have been allowed by the appellant to use by same person against the invoices to be issued by the appellant without supplying the goods. On these presumptions, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing penalty under Rule 25 and R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w declared these difference in their regular Excise return. He further submits that if the penalty under Rule 25 is not imposable, even penalty under Rule 27 is imposable on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act/Rules. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, both penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 27 were proposed in the sh....