9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st March, 2001, upholding the order-in-original by which a total demand of Rs. 82,500/- under four show cause notices for different periods was confirmed under Rule 96-ZB read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a penalty of the like amounts imposed under Rules 173Q, 209 and 96-ZE of the Rules. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Circles falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7606.20. The application of the appellant for removing their product under Rule 96-ZA was granted on 18-12-1997 for the period from 19-12-1997 to 30-11-1998. The duty was paid @ Rs. 7,500/- per month as per the Notification No. 33/97 dated 30-5-1997. The appellant paid only Rs. 3,750/- for the period from 19-12-1997 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Rule 173A(ii) of the said Rules. 5. It is evident from the record that, the appellant had taken up the defence that their power supply was disconnected since 21st February, 1998. This plea was rejected on the ground that, prior to the personal hearing, attended before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department was not told that the power supply was disconnected since 21st February, 1998. It was also rejected on the ground that, the disconnection order issued by the Electricity Board, indicated discrepancy in the date of the order and the date below the signature contained in the order. It was also held that, no intimation was received by the Department about the closure. 6. The record indicates that, an intimation was sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant unless it was proved that the disconnection order was a forged one. No such allegation has been made, and on perusal of the photocopy of the disconnection order, apart from the discrepancy in the date below the signature, there is nothing that would indicate that it was a forged order. The order was issued in the prescribed form and contains the necessary particulars, which were written in hand. No effort was made by the Department to ascertain from the Electricity Board the genuineness of this order, nor was the appellant given any chance, during the course of the hearing, to explain the discrepancy or get it explained by summoning a witness from the Board. The cumulative effect of the letter dated 25-2-1998; the order disconn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he number of cold rolling machines which were installed in the last month i.e. January, 1998. Admittedly, only one machine was installed. Therefore, duty was payable @ Rs. 7,500/- per month for each of the months of January and February, 1998, i.e. total amount of Rs. 15,000/-, with interest for the delayed payment. 8. The authorities below have imposed penalties totalling Rs. 82,000/- under Rules 173Q, 209 and 96-ZE of the said Rules. It appears from the provisions of Rule 173A(ii) that provisions of Chapter VII-A, which included Rule 173Q, did not apply to a manufacturer who had been allowed to discharge his duty liability, inter alia, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section E-VI of Chapter V of the said Rules. Obviou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show cause notices relating to the period prior to the date of closure on 21-2-1998, penalty could not have exceeded Rs. 2,000/- and total penalty of Rs. 4,000/- alone could be imposed. The order imposing total penalty of Rs. 82,000/- cannot, therefore, be sustained.
9. It is accordingly ordered that the appellant shall pay a total duty amount of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 96-ZB of the said Rules read with Section 11A of the said Act along with interest due thereon under Section 11AA of the Act and shall also pay the reduced penalty of a total amount of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only). The impugned order is accordingly modified and the appeal is partly allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
