9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself could be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, we allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise levying interest on an amount of duty paid belatedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht of December, 1998. They ought to have paid the duty for that fortnight on or before 31-12-98 as per the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) ibid. But they paid the duty on 2-1-1999 only. The reason for this delay, as put forwarded by the appellants before the adjudicating authority and accepted by that authority, was that the last day of December, 1998 and the first day of January, 1999 were bank holida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) in so far as the power of the Commissioner to impose penalty was concerned, but that discretion was not reasonably exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Counsel fairly submits that, in the interest of speedy conclusion of the litigation, the appellants are willing to pay the interest as confirmed in the impugned order. His prayer is for a lenient approach in the penalty asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rule 96ZP(3), we would call upon the appellants to pay the minimum penalty prescribed under that Rule. We think, in this context, we are supported by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Processors v. CC, Mumbai reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 633 (T). 8. In the result, we dispose of the appeal, directing that the appellants shall pay the minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
