Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2007 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excisepenalty u/r 96ZP(3) of CER - opted to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme - delay of 15 days in payment - Sec 3A of CEA & rule 96ZP(3) of CER are independent provisions - Compounded Levy Scheme is a comprehensive & general provisions in the CEA & CER are needed to be excluded - discretion to levy penalty u/r 96ZP has to be exercised judiciously regarding fact of the given case - impugned order is set aside in view the facts and circumstances of the case & the delay, penalty reduced
Issues:
- Appeal against setting aside penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules as time-barred. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal where the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules was set aside as time-barred. The case involved the manufacture of hot re-rolled products under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The respondents were required to pay duty by the 10th day of each month, but they paid duty of Rs.83,600/- with a delay of 15 days. A show-cause notice was issued for imposing a penalty equal to the amount of duty not deposited within the stipulated time period. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, stating that the show-cause notice was time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant was liable to pay duty by the 10th of each month but paid it 15 days late. The appellant argued that the show-cause notice was time-barred as it was initiated after the expiry of one year and the extended period of 5 years. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that no suppression of facts was found on the part of the appellant, and thus, no extended period could be invoked. The provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act were considered applicable for duty short paid or not paid and for the imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to previous judgments, highlighting that the Compounded Levy Scheme is a comprehensive scheme, and general provisions in the Central Excise Act and Rules need to be excluded. The discretion to levy a penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) should be exercised judiciously, considering factors like the amount of duty involved, the extent of delay, reasons for delay, and other relevant circumstances. Based on these considerations, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the previous order and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-, finding it suitable in the given circumstances. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was disposed of with the decision to impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/-, as deemed appropriate for meeting the ends of justice.
|