9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The learned consultant for the appellant prays for final disposal of the appeal itself. Having regard to the nature of the issue involved in this case, I am inclined to accede to this request. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I take up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not pay interest at that stage either. It was after receipt of show-cause notice dated 21.1.2010 that they paid-up the interest, which took place in March 2010. The adjudicating authority noted this fact and appropriated the payment towards the demand raised under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. It also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the assessee under Rule 25 of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 (273) E.L.T. 53 (P&H). Per contra, the learned Superintendent (AR) submits that the interest liability arises automatically and, therefore, the appellant ought to have paid interest also along with the differential duty. It is submitted that they wanted to evade payment of interest, which is evident from the fact that they did not chose to pay interest even in the face of audit objections. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strained to take the view that the appellant wanted to evade payment of interest. This conduct of the appellant certainly invited the penal provisions of Rule 25. Though the amount of interest, payment whereof was evaded for some time by the assessee, was as high as Rs.6,69,511/-, the adjudicating authority chose to impose a penalty as low as Rs.50,000/-. In my view, the adjudicating authority was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
