9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000, was required to discharge duty liability on the basis of annual production capacity. Such duty had been fixed by the competent authority at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lacs per chamber per month. Accordingly, for the month of April 1999, an amount of Rs. 13.5 lacs was required to be paid by the petitioner towards duty on or before 15 April 1999. It is an admitted position that a sum of Rs. 8.5 lacs was paid by TR-6 challan on 15th April 1999 and the balance amount of Rs. 5 lacs was paid on the very next day i.e. on 16th April 1999. 3. According to respondent No. 3, as the petitioner had committed default within the meaning of provisions of Rule 96ZQ(3) of the Rules, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by the prescribed date and less than half the amount payable remained outstanding on the prescribed date; the said liability was discharged immediately on the next day. That for default of 24 hours, the order levying penalty to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs was not only harsh but unreasonable, especially when one considers the fact that, for the very same default, the loss of revenue for a day was compensated by payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 520/-. In other words, the submission was that the penalty was not commensurate with the default and the authority had not exercised the discretion vested in it in a judicial manner. The learned advocate emphasized the fact that the payment was made voluntarily on the immediately succeeding day wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o levy penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions. It was, therefore, urged that, in the circumstances, the discretion vested in the authority was not validly exercised and the penalty order was required to be quashed and set aside. In the alternative, it was submitted that, as directed by this Court in the earlier case of Vitrang Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the matter be restored to the file of respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh in light of the legal position pronounced by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 5. It is necessary to record that though the revenue is represented by the counsel, no affidavit in reply has come on record. Mr. Malkan has reiterated the contentions raised by revenue before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
