9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69,345.81 imposed upon the appellants under the provision of Rule 96ZP(3) on the ground of non-payment of duty by 10th of every month in accordance with the annual capacity fixed by the Commissioner. The appellants are not challenging the confirmation of demand against them, but submit through their Advocate Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee that the adjudicating authority has imposed 100% penalty upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly he submits, while admitting that the duty is required to be paid by them, which has actually been paid along with the interest, that the penalty quantum should be reduced. 2. Shri R.K. Roy, JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that there is nothing on record to show the appellants' inability to pay the duty in time. This fact reflects upon the conduct of the party in delayed payments to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 173Q, and Section 11AC [which is pari materia to the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3)] with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Their Lordships have also referred in para 22 to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals. Section 7, sub-section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Praveah Par Kar Adhiniam, 1976 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal penalty required to be imposed upon the assessees and it is not necessary that 100% penalty should be imposed inasmuch as the said section lays down the maximum of the penalty which may be equal to the quantum of duty evaded by the assessee. We also note that in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T), it has been held that Section 11AC only lays down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
