9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The Revenue has filed this appeal praying for imposition of penalty on M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills manufacture M.S. bars, rods, etc. which are liable to pay Central Excise duty on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants was provisionally determined by Order dated 3-10-97 and it was finalized by Order dated 30-3-98; that subsequently as the Respondents had changed the parameters of their action in the month of April, 1998 the Annual Capacity of Production was revised and re-determined by the Commissioner vide Order dated 3-2-99 w.e.f. 1-5-98. He contended that during the month of May, 1998 the Respondents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 the Respondents had deposited another Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter another Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by them. He further submitted that they had changed the parameters of their mill after taking permission from the proper authority and had applied for re-determination of their Annual Capacity of Production in April, 1998; that as the Commissioner had not re-determined their Annual Capacity of Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 provided that where a manufacturer fails to pay whole of the duty payable for any month, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount of duty along with interest and a penalty equivalent to the amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the entire amount of duty has not been paid by them during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 1998. Accordingly we hold that the Appellants are liable to pay penalty. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that maximum penalty imposable under Rule 96ZP(3) is not warranted to be imposed in the present proceedings. The interest of justice will be met, if a nominal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed. We order accordingly. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
