2026 (7) TMI 1444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cted the appeal of the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant M/s Gagan Kwality Works are engaged in the manufacture of Nuts Threaded and Nuts Un-Threaded classifiable under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The allegation of the department is that the Appellant had wrongly availed the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 during the Financial Year 2010-11. Further, the allegation of the department is that the Appellant paid duty on a quarterly basis and filed quarterly ER-3 returns instead of paying duty on a monthly basis and filing monthly ER-1 returns during the period 2010-11. Further, the department observed that during the Financial Year 2009-10, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2014, again confirmed the demand of Rs.4,60,182/- along with interest and imposed an equivalent penalty of Rs.4,60,182/-. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has upheld the said Order-in-Original and has rejected Appellant's appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts & the law and the binding judicial precedents. 4.1 He further submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ause there was no suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the Appellant, and at the most, the penalty, if any, could have been proposed under Rule 27 and not under Rule 25. 4.4 In support of his above submissions, he places reliance on the following case-laws: * Sandley Industries vs. UOI - 2015 (326) ELT 256 (P&H) * Shreeji Surface Coatings Pvt Ltd vs UOI - 2015 (320) 764 (Guj.) * Praweg Conveyors vs. CCE, Kalyan-III - 2016 (337) ELT 450 (Tri. Mum.) * CCE & Cus vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd - 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) * CCE, Mumbai-II vs. Chopra Engineering Co. - 2016 (339) ELT 423 (Tri. Mum.) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for t....