9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 23-6-1995 to the extent that it does not impose penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding at the end of the month which according to the learned authorized representative for the department would be Rs. 62,796/- for the relevant period in respect of which the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand. 2. The respondent was engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit with effect from 1-10-1998. 5. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings on the ground that this was a case of closure of the unit and not a change in the installation of the capacity in the unit and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent had manufactured the dutiable goods during the relevant period. 6. The Appellate Commissioner found that the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period. If the date of receipt of the intimation is to be excluded, for the eleven days the amount works out to Rs. 62,796/- on the basis of pre-determination of monthly liability of Rs. 1,71,261/-. The appeal filed by the assessee against that order, appears to have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of imposing a penalty equal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed whenever the manufacturer fails to pay the amounts of duty of any month by the 10th of such month. This is a clear mandate of the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules . It was also held in paragraph 7 of the judgment that: ..........the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) does not say that the maximum penalty can be up to the amount of duty outstanding. It says that the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
