9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount of duty mentioned in the above order is the total of the duty amounts paid from PLA from time to time, each payment having been made by cheque. The cheque was presented to the bankers of Central Government on the due date of payment and the corresponding credit was taken by the assessee in their PLA on the same date. But the amount got credited to the Revenue's account only on the next date. This was considered as a delayed payment and, on that basis, the adjudicating authority has visited the assessee with a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This penalty is under challenge in the instant appeal. 2. Heard both sides. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held to have defaulted payment of duty as the amount covered by the cheque presented by them to the Government's bankers was credited to the exchequer after the due date of payment. 4. We have considered the submissions and the case law cited. The impugned penalty is on account of alleged delay in payment of duty. The question before us is whether actually there was delay in payment of duty. The amount of duty mentioned in the impugned order is the total of the payments made from time to time by the assessee. One instance of such payment is evidenced by a TR-6 Challan placed before us. This Challan indicates that the cheque covering the amount of duty was presented to Indian Bank (Government's bank) on 26-4-2001 and the payment was clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified date or by a specific due date, the payment must be made by that particular date provided under the statute". The High Court held so after noticing that there was an explanation under Rule 8 ibid which mandated payment of duty within a specific due date. We find that, in the instant case, ld. SDR has drawn our attention to a more or less similar explanation under Rule 173G, which rule is relevant to this case. But this explanation laying down specific due date for payment of duty relates to payments under the fortnightly scheme of payment of duty and, therefore, we are unable to apply the ruling of the Bombay High Court to the instant case, wherein the payments of duty in question were not under the said scheme. 6. We have already f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
