9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue is identical. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants defaulted in monthly payment of duty for the month of September 07 and November 07 beyond thirty days and cleared the goods without payment of duty from the current account during the period beyond thirty days of default period to the actual date of payment of defaulted amount which was not allowable in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 4. The appellant is only contesting the quantum of penalty. Learned advocate Shri M. Dave appearing for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal wherein it was held that for default in payment of duty of fortnightly basis, the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the said order is reproduced below: 2.?After hearing both the sides I find that penalty stands imposed upon the appellant in the Provisions of Section 11AC. However, I find that this is not a case relating to long levy or short levy of duty on account of any fraud, suppression or misstatement with an intent to evade payment of duty. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty, Rule 27, which provide for maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- would get attracted. Accordingly, penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-, but for the above modification in the quantum of penalty appeal is otherwise rejected. 7. In as much as the issue is settled the penalty is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed off in above manner. (Pronounced in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
