9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -, the appeal has been heard for admission as per the provisions of the second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The appellant company was engaged in the manufacture of bars, roads and non alloy steels and scrap and were paying duty on monthly basis under Section 3A of the said Act read with Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under the following proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) where a manufacturer failed to pay the whole of the amount of duty payable for any month by the 10th day of such month. He was liable to pay interest and penalty :- .. Provided also that if a manufacturer makes a change in the capacity of re-rolling installed in his factory, of there is any change in the total-rerolling capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He relied upon the observation made in Para 2 of the order that there can be no two penalties for the same offence and that this principle was enshrined in the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case the defaults made by the appellants are not disputed during the arguments in this appeal. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalty of Rs. 6,05,985/- in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of the said rules for late payment of duty. It appears that before the appellate Commissioner the appellant had prayed for a lenient view. The appellate Commissioner took a lenient view by reducing the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- presumably because the amounts were deposited with interest on 16-10-1998 and 31-3-1998, as stated by the learned Counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 20(2) is to avoid the harassment which must be caused to a person for successive criminal proceedings and the provision bars the prosecution and punishment after an earlier punishment of the same offence [See Makbool v. State of Bombay - (1953) SC 325; Assistant Customs Collector v. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962]. 8. In view of the settled legal position as reflected in numerous decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the context of Article 20(2), the aforesaid observation made in paragraph 2 of the order in Nirlon Ltd., (supra) by the learned single Member will have no force. It may be noticed that the same Hon ble Member in a decision rendered in a few months later held in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. Thangam Steels Ltd., repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
