Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 58 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty Alleged that all the assessees were working under Compounded Levy Scheme and have made monthly payment after the due date for one or more months and accordingly penalty imposed on him Concerned authority after undertaken the detail allow the appeal partly
Issues involved:
- Common issue of penalty imposition under Rule 96ZQ 5(ii) for delayed payments under Compounded Levy Scheme. Detailed Analysis: 1. Balakrishna Dyeing & Printing Mills and Singhvi Processors Pvt. Ltd.: The assessees faced a delay in payment due to bank closure and subsequent holidays. The Tribunal applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, allowing payment on the next working day. Consequently, the appeals of these two parties were allowed, and corresponding appeals by the Department were rejected. 2. M/s. Dinesh Dyeing & Printing Works, Abhishek Fashions Pvt. Ltd., and Govinda Processors: Despite a one-day delay in payment, the assessees promptly paid the dues the next day due to financial constraints and banking procedures. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal held that penalties should be proportionate to any gain made. The penalty was enhanced in one case and reduced to Rs. 5,000 in others. One appeal by M/s. Dinesh Dyeing & Printing Works was rejected, while the Department's appeal was partly allowed. 3. Harish Silk Mills: Admitting a three-day delay in payment, the assessee paid interest and cited similar reasons as other cases for the delay. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000, and the appeal by the assessee was partly allowed, while the Department's appeal was rejected. 4. Overall Decision: The appeals by Balakrishna Dyeing & Printing Mills and Singhvi Processors Pvt. Ltd. were allowed. The appeal by M/s. Dinesh Dyeing & Printing Works was rejected. Other assessees' appeals were partly allowed, with penalties reduced to Rs. 5,000 each. The Department's appeal was partly allowed in one case, enhancing the penalty to Rs. 5,000, while other Department appeals were rejected.
|