9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des are in appeal against the same impugned order. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant assessee, states that he is not pressing the appeal against the demand of duty and further states that the demanded amount has already been paid. He however, pleads that the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the lower appellate authority should be set aside as the appellants did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that in the case of SKF India Ltd. (cited supra), Hon ble Supreme Court has held that payment of differential duty at a later date is clearly a case of short payment of duty though completely unintented and without element of deceit. The Hon ble Supreme Court has also held that interest is chargeable under Section 11AB but no penalty is attracted under Section 11AC in the absence of fraud, suppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of removal itself. Therefore, by paying the duty short, the appellants have contravened Rule 173F and consequently they are liable to penalty under Rule 173Q for removal of goods in contravention of Rules. We also note that the adjudicating Commissioner has correctly noted that under Rule 173Q(1)(a), intention to evade payment of duty is not an essential ingredient to invite penalty. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
