9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANA HIGH COURT) that rule providing for penalty equal to the monthly duty liability for delay in discharge of monthly duty liability by due date has been held to be ultra vires There is no mandatory penalty equal to the outstanding duty liability at the end of the month even for smallest delay in discharge of duty liability by the due date; some penalty commensurate with gravity of the contravention can be imposed by the adjudicating authority. Penalty on the appellant is reduced to ₹ 5 lakhs. Partly allowed in favour of assessee - E/899/2006 - A/958/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 26-7-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sumit Kumar, AR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8,64,000/- which had been short paid was confirmed under Rule 96ZQ(5) along with interest on this duty and besides this, penalty of Rs. 1,15,14,516/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant filed an appeal against the Joint Commissioner s order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was dismissed vide order-in-appeal dated 24-10-2000. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 150/01-D, dated 6-6-2001 by which the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for de novo decision in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 3-2-2006 against which, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that there was no short payment of duty, that in view of this, there is no justification for penalty, that in any case, there is no justification for imposing penalty of Rs. 1,15,14,516/- which is equal to the total duty liability for the period of dispute just because there was a few day, delay in discharge of the same, that though the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) had held that under third proviso to Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame is not sustainable in view of the above judgments of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Courts and Hon ble Gujarat High Courts. 5. Shri Sumit Kumar, ld. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. In this case admittedly, there was delay of 15 days, 11 days and 9 days in discharge of monthly duty liability by due date for the months April, 1999, May, 1999 and June, 1999 respectively. Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) provided for imposition of penalty for assessee s failure to discharge dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
