9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. Ground that it was due to bonafide belief is insufficient to not impose penalty equal to duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of erstwhile. - E/393/2001 and 420/2002 - 691-692/2009 - Dated:- 27-5-2009 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - These are two appeals filed by M Panchsheel Alloys Construction Pvt. Ltd., (PACPL). PACPL are engaged in the manufacture of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots Billets and paid duty on the fin shed goods under the Compounded Levy Scheme in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). The authorities foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99/- 00-0.00 hrs Adjudicating the Show Cause Notice at S.No.1, the Commissioner found that the appellants had paid an amount of Rs.1,54,937/- in excess for August 1997. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner found that taking into account the duty due of Rs.9,32,712/- and the admissible abatements of Rs.5,69,533, the appellants were due to pay balance duty of Rs.3,63,179/-. She imposed a penalty of Rs.3,63,179/- on M/s PACPL, under Rule 96(ZO)(3) of Central Excise Rules (CER). Appeal No. E/393/2001 challenges the demand. Appeal No. E/420 12002 challenges the imposition of penalty of Rs.3,63,179/- on M/s PACPL, under Rule 96(ZO)(3) of CER. Relying on a report dated 23-8-2000, sent to the Deputy Commissioner by the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee days as per our finding, offsetting the excess payment of Rs.1,54,937/- for these days, the balance due is Rs.1,51,164. Thus the appellant's revised liability is found to be Rs.1,51,164/-. The appellants have sought reduction in the penalty imposed on them on the ground that the failure was owing to bona fide belief. We find that in view of the language of Rule 96(ZO)(3) as interpreted by the Apex Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors v.UOI - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the appellants are liable to pay penalty equal to the amount of duty short paid of Rs.1,51,164/- Accordingly, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs.1,51,164/-. The appeals are thus partly allowed on the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
