9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t failed to make payment through Internet electronically during the period form April, 2007 to March, 2008 and accordingly, the appellant was issued with two SCNs i.e. first SCN dated 24-1-2008 covering the period from April. 2007 to September, 2007 and the second dated 11-7-2008 covering the period from October, 2007 to March, 2008 proposing for penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the Rules); that on adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- calculated @ Rs. 5,000/- for each month during which period, the failure continued. 2. Being aggrieved by the above both the orders, the appellant has come up with the present appeals along with stay petitions wherein the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by not following the E-payment facility in initial period of time has not resulted in to any revenue loss to the department as they have already deposited and debited the applicable cenvat and other duties through FLA and cenvat credit account for the said period; (vii) that the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that they have now started paying duty electronically with effect from July, 2008 and the adjudicating authority failed to take cognizance of the same while passing the impugned OIOs.; (viii) that despite the CBEC s directions to the field formations to visit the assessee for clearing their doubts and E payment, not a single officer visited the MIDC area or called on them or called them for any meeting at any C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the penalty, since there is no default on the part of his client in paying Govt. dues as the same was paid manually. 4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH carefully. After waiving pre-deposits in both the appeals, I take them for common decision. The issue to be decided in both the appeals is that whether the appellant is liable to pay penalty under Rule 27; that whether is it correct to impose penalty @ Rs. 5,000/- for every month during which period the failure of making payment through internet banking continued, that there is no dispute regarding discharge of payment of Central Excise duty by the appellant during the material period. The only dispute is that the appellant failed to honour the payment electr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroller of Accounts have clarified that the payment of duty through internet is an additional facility available to the assessee. But as per the third proviso to Rule 8, an assessee, whose duty payment through PLA is more than Rs. 50 lakhs during the previous financial year or in the present financial year was liable to pay duty electronically. Under the above circumstances, the appellant should have paid the duty electronically. But they have not done so due to the reason mentioned above. Since it is not deliberate on the part of the appellant not honour the duty electronically, the breach may be considered as a technical violation and hence does not warrant invoicing Rule 27 for imposing penalty. Further, another key word used is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
