2003 (12) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty confirmation, personal penalty imposition under Rule 96ZP(3), reduction of penalty amount

In this case, the authorities confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 29,59,520 against the appellants and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 16,72,700 for non-discharge of duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) during specific periods. The appellants later deposited the duty amount as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal proceeded without the pre-deposit condition of penalty. The consultant for the appellants did not contest the duty confirmation, attributing the delay in payment to financial difficulties, but argued that the imposed penalty was unjustified considering subsequent compliance. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation and interest but considered precedents indicating that the penalty prescribed by Rule 96ZP(3) was not mandatory and could be reduced based on circumstances. Despite acknowledging a breach of law, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 4,00,000, recognizing the appellants' good faith in eventually fulfilling their obligation. The appeal was rejected except for the penalty modification, and the stay petition was disposed of.