2004 (10) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder (Oral)]. Examined the records and heard both sides. The appellants were availing the monthly payment facility under Rule 173GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the material period. The duty amounts for the months June and July, 1999 happened to be paid much beyond the respective due dates and the same were paid with interest at the rate of 30% per annum in terms of sub-rule (3) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sub-rule (3) of Rule 173GG was not mandatory and that, in a befitting case like this, it was liable to be reduced, if not vacated. I have heard ld. SDR also, who points out that the penalty provisions of Rule 173GG were couched in mandatory language and hence the lower authorities had no option other than imposing the prescribed penalty of Rs. 500/- per day on the assessee for the delay of payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has to pay it with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. Obviously, this interest has a penal element incorporated therein. It is over and above this that the assessee was required to pay penalty of Rs. 500/- per day. There is a double jeopardy here inasmuch as there can be no two penalties for the same offence vide Article 20 of the Constitution of India. This is a relevant consideration which ought .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X