2006 (3) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from amount equivalent to duty to Rs. 5,000/-, which is against the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3). He has relied on the Tribunal s decision cited by the respondents in the following cases :- (i) Supertik Industries v. CCE, Bangalore - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 993 (Tri.)=2002 (50) RLT 691 (CEGAT-Bang.). (ii) Maharashtra Sai Udyog v. CCE, Mumbai-VII - 2002 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e end of such month or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The learned SDR, therefore, submitted that the appellants are bounded under Rule 96ZP(3) to pay the penalty, which was equivalent to duty or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater and not maximum penalty as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). In support of his contention, he cites the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spite of notice. 5. I find considerable force in the plea made by the learned SDR. I also find that the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has clearly held that the penalty referred to under 4th proviso of Rule 96ZP(3) is not a maximum penalty but the only penalty equivalent to duty not paid and, hence, such penalty is to be levied whenever they failed to pay the duty by the end of the month. 6. Ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X