9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere filed in time. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under the impugned order cannot be sustained. Liability to pay interest, it is clear from the provisions of Rule 8(3) that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment at the interest rate stipulated thereunder which was 24% at the relevant time. To the extent that Rule 8(3) of the said rules authorized imposing of interest at Rs. 1000/- per day of delay, this Tribunal has already held in Automotive India (Raipur) Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE, Raipur [ 2006 (8) TMI 17 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] , that, the words rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher occurring in Rule 8(3) were ultra-vires the provisions of Rule 11AB(1) of the Act and therefore, cannot be enforced. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he jurisdictional authorities. Two show cause notices were issued on 1-9-2003 and 29-3-2004, requiring the appellant to pay the said amount or to show cause against the proposed recovery. Penalty and interest were proposed under Rule 25 and 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 9,65,000/-. A penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 25 and interest was ordered to be paid under Rule 8(3). While confirming the demand under Rule 8(3), the Appellate Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no intention to evade the duty since the liability was disclosed from the inception and only the payment was delayed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 25, since it was obvious that, having disclosed the liability in their returns and pleading financial crisis as the cause of delay, there could not have been any intention to evade the payment of duty. Inference of evasion of duty cannot be drawn from mere delay in making the payment of tax in respect of the transactions already disclosed in the returns which were filed in time. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. As regards the liability to pay interest, it is clear from the provisions of Rule 8(3) that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment at the interest rate stipulated thereunder which was 24% at the relevant time. To the extent tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
