9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants, during the material period, were availing the facility of monthly payment of duty under Rule 173GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to this facility, they were liable to pay duty for a calendar month on or before the 15th day of the next month. Accordingly, the amounts of duty for Aug. 99 and Oct. 99 had to be paid by 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the present appeal. 2.Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the authorities below had discretionary powers to impose a lesser penalty, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, but none of them cared to exercise this discretion. According to ld. Counsel, the penalty of Rs. 500/- per day prescribed under Rule 173GG(3) was the maximum limit and there was no bar for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n PEE AAR Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut [2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All.)]. 3.I have carefully considered the submissions and examined the relevant provision of law. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173GG which was admittedly in force during the periods of default of payment of duty, is reproduced below:- (3) If the manufacturer fails to pay the amount of duty payable for a calend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceed the value of clearances during the said month. Obviously, the proviso contained the maximum limit for a penalty under Rule 173GG(3). Any discretion exercisable by a quasi judicial authority in the matter of determining the quantum of penalty would stand limited by these parameters. The indisputable fact is that the penalty imposed by the lower authorities on the appellants is the minimum pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
