9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shall be liable to pay : - (i) the outstanding amount of duty along with interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum calculated for the period from the 16th day of such month or the 1st day of the next month, as the case may be, till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount. (ii) a penalty equal to such outstanding amount of duty or five thousands rupees, whichever is greater." There was a delay of 15 days in the payment of duty for the month of March, 2000 by the respondents, who at the material time were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZO read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Interest on the duty amount for this period of delay amounting to Rs. 2,466/- was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in Silvester Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 119], wherein it was held that no penalty was imposable on the assessee under Rule 96ZQ(5) for a delay of two days in the payment of duty. Reference was also made to the Tribunal's decision in Supertik Industries v. CCE, Bangalore [2002 (147) E.L.T. 993 = 2002 (50) R.L.T. 691], wherein a penalty of Rs. 2.89 lakhs imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) was reduced to Rs. 20,000/-. 2. After examining the case law cited by both sides, I find that none of the cited decisions relates to penalty under Rule 96ZO(3). Ld. DR has argued that the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) are pari mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clined to hold that a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- would be reasonable. 3. The reason stated by the lower appellate authority for vacating the penalty appears to be that the assessee had paid the duty for March, 2000 before he received the Commissioner's revised order of ACP. This does not appear to be a sound reasoning inasmuch as it is an admitted fact in this case that the assessee had been paying duty for the previous period on the basis of their own estimate of ACP and monthly duty liability, which was their claim before the Commissioner and was accepted by him in the revised order of ACP. The assessee could have done the same thing for the month of March, 2000 as well without waiting for the said order. In the circumstances, the delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
