9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. - Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS girder, angles etc. With effect from 1-9-97, the respondents were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme and were paying duty as determined by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty, therefore, the respondents were liable to penalty, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 1,55,000/-. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that as the appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme and their factory was closed and restarted the production on 31-10-05, therefore, are liable to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme up to 31-3-99 and shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue. In respect of imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty paid after due date, the contention is that there was delay of only five days in deposit of duty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to impose lesser amount of penalty where the maximum penalty is prescribed. The appellant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP v. BHEL reported in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty mentioned under proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) is not the maximum penalty but the only penalty, and hence such penalty has to be levied whenever there is failure to pay the duty by the 10th of the month. The Hon'ble High Court held that CEGAT has been lenient by reducing the penalty which strictly speaking it could not do because the proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) does not say that the maximum penalty can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
