9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of shortfall in the payment of excise duty is negligible as compared to the amount of duty paid for respective months. Undisputedly, the shortfall was made good by the appellant after it was brought to his notice - As compared to the amount of default, the amount of duty confirmed against the appellant is too huge, therefore, in our view calling upon the appellant to make pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty would obviously cause him undue financial hardship - Stay granted. - 211/2012 - 898/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 6-6-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.R.M. Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Panda, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts of short payment are negligible which in itself to show that there was no intention on the part of appellant to commit default. The plea of the appellant did not find favour with Commissioner (Adjudication) who going by strict interpretation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs. 2,10,87,816/- and allowed appropriation of Rs. 99,15,670/- against the aforesaid demand. The Commissioner also directed the appellant to pay appropriate interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed further penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. 5. Learned Shri Madhav Rao, Advocate appearing for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for hearing of appeal. 6. Shri S.K. Panda, DR on the contrary has argued in favour of the impugned order. Relying upon the judgment of CESTAT in the matter of Godrej Hershey Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal (supra) in particular para 30. Shri Panda submits that this is a clear case of default in payment of excise duty as such this is not a fit case for waiver of the pre-deposit. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the judgments referred to by respective parties. It is undisputed that the appellant paid the excise duty within the grace period of 30 days as provided under the rules. The amount paid by the appellant, however, was slightly less in various instances and that shortfall was made good with interest in November 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
