9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether under the Compounded Levy Scheme, the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96(ZP) permitting imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty for delay in payment of duty, without any discretion and without having regard to the extent and circumstances of delay, could be held to be ultravires the Act and the Constitution of India? ii) Whether mandatory penalty equal to amount of duty on the assessee in case of violation of the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96(ZP) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be waived at the discretion of any authority having regard to the extent and circumstances of delay in payment of duty? iii) Whether provisions of section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding limitation shall apply to the compounded lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarge duty liability of Rs. 5000/- for each of the month from March 1998 to February 2000 within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 14.5.2004 was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why penalty should not be recovered under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules equal to the amount of duty not deposited within the stipulated time. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 26.2.2009, Annexure A.1 imposed upon the respondent a penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/- under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules read with Section 3A of the Act for not depositing the duty within stipulated time. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 8.2.2010, Annexure A.2, the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nceded position that proceedings against the respondent-assessee for imposing penalty were initiated after the expiry of period of five years. Although there is no statutory period of limitation yet reasonable period of limitation for initiating proceedings is five years. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, (2007) 11 SCC 363." 6. In so far as judgment in Raghuvar (India) Limited's case (supra) is concerned, therein also, the Apex Court held that any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
