9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005, 21-9-2005 and 21-12-2005. The appellants also paid a total amount of Rs. 16.59 lakhs towards interest for the delay in payment of the above duty amount. The original authority found that the appellants had contravened the provisions of sub-rule 3 of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He found that the second provisos to Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules provided for imposing penalty on the assessee for the delay in paying duty by the due date and interest treating the clearances in the concerned month as if made without payment of duty. He found that the appellants had removed the goods in March 2005 in contravention of Rule 8(1), which attracted penal provisions of Rule 25(1)(a). He observed that there was an Order-in-Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty due on March 31st, 2005 and paid the same in instalments over a period of nine months along with interest. Second proviso to Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as it existed at the material time reads as follows :- RULE 8. Manner of payment - (1) . (2) . (3) If the assessee fails to pay the amount of duty by the due date, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount along with an interest at the rate of two per cent per month or rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher, for the period starting with the first day after due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount: Provided that the total mount of interest payable in terms of this sub-rule shall not exceed the amount of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , or [rupees two thousand], whichever is greater. Reading both these provisions together, it is obvious that the lower authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs in accordance with law. 6. I find that the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the ld. Counsel is different on facts, therefore, the ratio of the decision is not applicable in deciding the dispute. The Order-in- Appeal followed by the original authority had dealt with six instances of default and forfeiture of the facility of monthly payment. Considering that the appellants had paid substantial amount of duty every month and that they have discharged duty liability of Rs. 1.42 crores for the month of March 05 along with interest of Rs. 16.52 lakhs, I find that the ends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
