9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the event of failure of the above legal obligation that the goods have to be deemed as having been cleared without payment of duty - In the instant case there is no order passed by any authority requiring the assessee to pay duty on consignment basis. As such I find that the above rule may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. Such delayed payments would not attract the provisions of Rule 25 and the same would be covered by Rule 27 which provide for maximum penalty of ₹ 5000/- - penalties reduced to ₹ 5,000/- each - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/794-797/2009 - A/1631-1634/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 29-7-2009 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Devashish K. Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for each consignment at the time of removal, without utilizing the Cenvat credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest thereon and in the event of any failure, which shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these rules shall follow. As such he submits that inasmuch as the appellant has defaulted in payment of duty, imposition of penalty to the extent of 100% was justified. 5. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, I find that penalties stand imposed upon the appellant in terms of Rule 25 read with Section 11AC. It is a case where the clearances were affected on records and the only default was non-paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat where the goods are cleared under the cover of invoices and the only default is delay in payment of duty, the Provisions of Rule 27 would get attracted which provide for a maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. R.K. Cigarettes (P) Ltd. reported in 2007 (3) LCX 22 that where returns are filed showing clearances and amounts of duty payable, there cannot be any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty. In such a scenario penalty under Rule 27 gets attracted. 3. In as much as in the present case the appellants have paid the entire duties along with the interest and as observed there was no mala fide intention to evade duty, Rule 27, which provide for maxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
