9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Appellant. S/Shri S.K. Mall and R.S. Sangia, SDRs, for the Respondent. [Order]. - As per facts on record, in both the appeals, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable items and were availing the facility of payment of excise duty on fortnightly basis, in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. During the period from April 2007 to October 2007, the appellant defaulted in payment of excise duty on due date for more than 30 days and thus, violated the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules. In terms of sub Rule 3A of Rule 8, if an assessee default in payment of duty beyond 30 days from the due date, as provided in sub Rule-1, the assessee is required to pay duty for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the appellants have paid the entire amount of duty in account current, penalty imposition to the extent of duty confirmed is unnecessarily harsh. He accordingly reduced the penalty to Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. The said imposition of penalty is impugned before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri P.M. Dave, advocate for the appellants and Shri S.K. Mall, SDR for the Revenue. 5. Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement Limited v. CCE, Rajkot - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 395 (Tri. Ahmd.) has considered an identical issue. It stands observed by the Tribunal in Para 5 that penalty for such an offence has to be imposed under Rule 27 and not under Rule 25. As the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such a scenario, the invocation of Rule 25 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty is not in accordance with the law. 6. We find that above view is also supported by the Tribunal's decisions in the case of M/s. Condor Power Products P. Ltd. [2007 (210) E.L.T. 137 (Tri. -Del.)], M/s. Automotive India (Raipur) Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (203) E.L.T. 402 (Tri. -Del.)] and CCE, Allahabad v. R.K. Cigarettes (P) Ltd. [2007 (213) E.L.T. 367 (Tribunal) = 2007 (79) RLT 804 (CESTAT - Del.)]. It has been held in the said decisions of the Tribunal that delay in payment of duty due to financial crisis will not attract penalty under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, but the said contravention would attract penal provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) and the Tribunal decision in the case of Star Battery Limited v. CCE, Kolkata - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 569 (Tri. Kolkata), upholding imposition of penalties. 7. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that even according to the amended provisions of Rule 8, as contained in Rule 8A, the failure on the part of the assessee to pay duty on consignment basis from PLA shall be deemed as if such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these Rules shall follow. One thing become clear from the above that consequence of such failure on the part of the assessee would meet with the penal provisions as contained in the Rules. I would like to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
