9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the 20th day of that month. For the second fortnight, they were liable to pay duty on or before the 5th day of the succeeding month. When the appellants committed default of payment of duty, the above facility of fortnightly payment was forfeited for a period of 2 months or till the date of payment of duty whichever was later. During the period of forfeiture, they paid duty by way of debit in Cenvat credit. This was objected to by the department. Therefore, in a show cause notice, they asked the party to pay the duty for the said period from PLA. This notice also proposed to impose penalty on the noticee under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants complied with a part of the department s demand by paying duty (with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein one of the referred issues answered by the High Court in favour of the respondents therein was whether this Tribunal was correct in sustaining the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the party under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act in a case where duty demanded by the department had been paid before conclusion of adjudication proceedings. 3. Ld. Joint CDR opposes the above arguments on the strength of Bombay High Court s judgment in Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. v UOI, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.), wherein the High Court came down heavily on the assessees (availing fortnightly payment of duty) choosing to pay duty, during periods of forfeiture of the said facility, in a mode [debit in Cenvat ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of not complying with the terms of Rule 8 ibid. It would appear that contravention of a mandatory provision of law would attract exemplary penalty. The original authority imposed a penalty of over Rs. 6.4 lakhs on the assessee. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in an apparently reasonable exercise of discretion in the matter, reduced this penalty to Rs. 1 lac. I am of the considered view that this is also, by itself, exemplary for a quasi-judicial authority. Further, I do not think that a higher appellate authority should sit in judgment over such exercise of discretion. 5. All the decisions cited before me by ld. counsel have been considered. In the case of Lloyds Steel Industries (supra), it was not disputed that the liability (of a manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
