9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation which is not true. In this case, it is clear that the assessee had mentioned that the amount of duty had been paid which, in fact, had not been paid. Therefore, I agree with the view submitted by learned AR that as far as penalty is concerned, in this case, Rule 25 has been correctly invoked. As regards the liability of Rs. 53,768/-, there is no dispute and learned counsel has fairly agreed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee, it was noticed that the assessee have not paid duty for the months of January, 2009 and March, 2009 amounting to Rs. 1,12,615/- (BED - Rs. 1,09,231/-, Education Cess - Rs. 2236, Higher Education Cess - Rs. 1148/-) and Rs. 40,711/- (BED - Rs. 39,489/-, Education Cess - Rs. 799/-, Higher Education Cess - Rs. 423/-) respectively, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any mis-declaration or suppression of facts or fraud, collusion etc. by the assessee. He submits that the assessee is a small scale unit and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- for default of Rs. 1.5 lakhs is abnormally high and may be reduced in view of the High Court s decision that penalty under Rule 25 is not imposable. 3. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) on the other hand, submits that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in this case, Rule 25 has been correctly invoked. As regards the liability of Rs. 53,768/-, there is no dispute and learned counsel has fairly agreed that they are required to deposit the amount in cash in view of the decision of the High Court. 5. In the light of above discussion, I hold that the appellant is liable to pay Rs. 53,768/- with interest. On payment of this amount, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
