9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order]. One of these appeals is by the assessee and the other by the department. During the material period, the assessee (manufacturers of MS Ingots) was working under the Compounded Levy Scheme (CLS, for short) in term of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and was discharging duty liability in terms of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the basis of Annual Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability for the above months was discharged only after receiving these orders. On the basis of this delay in payments, department proposed to impose penalty on the assessee under Rule 96ZO(3). The proposal was contested. The original authority imposed the maximum penalty (equal to total amount of duty) under the above provision. The first appellate authority reduced it to Rs. 1 lakh. Still aggrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erut [2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All.), wherein it was held that this Tribunal was not competent to reduce the penalty imposable under the 4th proviso to Rule 96 ZP(3). Reliance has also been placed on the Tribunal s decision in Allied Ferromelt Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II [2002 (149) E.L.T. 237 (Tri.-Mumbai)], wherein the penalty imposed on the party under Rule 96ZO(3) was up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3). In the case of Allied Ferromelt (supra) cited by ld. SDR, the penalty imposed on the party was not reduced by the Tribunal. In that case, apparently, the Tribunal found that the conduct of the party was not clean. On the other hand, in the instant case, it appears, the assessee was waiting for the outcome of their abatement claims. They received one abatement order in March, 1999 and paid a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
