9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. M/s. Kanchan Processors (P) Ltd. have filed the present appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs. 12.5 lakhs under Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the processing of man-made fabrics which were liable to Central Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Advocate submitted that the Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers v. UOI - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.) = 2002 (52) RLT 636 has held that rules issued under Notification No. 42/98 are ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that the Appellate Tribunal has followed the said decision in the case of Shree Sai Prasad Dyg. Pt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has not been paid in the present matter by due date, and therefore, penalty equal to the amount of duty has been rightly imposed. He also submitted that the decision in the case of Beauty Dyers is not applicable to the Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi as the same is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Universal Dying and Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants had issued the cheque for Rs. 12,50,000/- on 29-8-2000 with a view to discharge their duty liability before the end of the month. It is common knowledge that clerical mistakes do happen while writing the cheque and this is what had happened in the present matter. The Appellants immediately after realizing their mistake has paid the duty by depositing cash in the bank. In this entire p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
