TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 751/2014-C.E., dated 21-11-2014. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, I find that the facts are not in dispute and the period in dispute is June, 2011 to July, 2011. During the period, appellant had disposed of the dutiable goods on which duty liability was not discharged. It is the case of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from whom the Appellants had received advances. However, I find that the Appellants had shown the manufacture and clearance of impugned goods in their ER-1 returns which proves that the said goods were subjected to self-assessment by the appellants. Hence, non-payment of duty is actually default in payment of duty which is to be treated as 'recoverable arrears of revenue' as per the relevant prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contention of the appellants is that as the information provided in their ER-1 returns was not questioned, no mala fide can be attributed and penalty under Rule 25 of CER cannot be imposed. The plan of Central Excise penalty provisions is that if fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, etc., i.e., mens rea is present then an equivalent penalty is required to be imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt of the order, which is not an available option for penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002. I find that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 70,000/- (not equivalent penalty) under Rule 25 by the original authority is just and proper. In view of the above, I pass the following order. ORDER I reject the appeal filed by M/s. Gyanba Sugars & Developers Ltd., Doddabathi, Davangere - 577 566, against Orde....