9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for dismissal of the appeal. In the last para of the cross-objections, it has been stated that "...........the appeal filed by the Revenue may be disposed off on merits because heavy expenditure will be involved in case some advocate or the representative of the unit attends the hearing at New Delhi.......... ." The matter is, therefore, heard on merits with the assistance of the learned Authorised Representative of the department. 3.The respondent was manufacturing sugar and molasses falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 17.01 and 17.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. A show cause notice came to be issued on the respondent on 29-8-2003 on the following two counts : (a) that the respondent took credit of Rs. 3,00,000/- in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 5000/- was the minimum prescribed under Rule 173Q of the said rules. It was also submitted that interest ought to have been charged under Section 11AB as was done in the order-in-original. It was contended that out of the total amount of Rs. 74,474.40 paise reversed later, an amount of Rs. 43,631.14 was already utilised by the respondent towards payment of duty on final products, before reversal. The respondent, therefore, acted in conscious disregard to the provisions of law, and, therefore, there was no warrant for showing any leniency by reducing the penalty amount. 6.There is no dispute over the fact that excise duty was payable on the goods removed on 16-1-1998 while the full amount due came to be deposited only on 17-1-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. Under the provisions of Section 11AB interest would be payable inter alia where there is contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. There was no allegation in the show cause notice that the breach of rule was committed with any intention to evade payment of duty. The respondent had pleaded extenuating circumstances which were found by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be genuine in respect of the contravention of Rule 57R(8). In fact, in respect of recovery of credit wrongly availed of or utilised in an irregular manner, Rule 57U, as it operated at the relevant time, required failure to pay the amount determined within 3 months from the date of the receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g" are indicative of the maximum amount upto which the penalty can be imposed which maximum will be Rs. 5,000/- only when the three times the value of the excisable goods was an amount lesser than Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, there is no minimum amount of penalty prescribed under the said provision. It cannot be said that when three times of the value of excisable goods works out to be more than Rs. 5,000/- then in such cases Rs. 5,000/- should be treated as the minimum prescribed penalty. No such construction is warranted from the language of the said provision from which it is abundantly clear that it prescribes the maximum limit upto which the penalty can be imposed which maximum limit in no case be below Rs. 5,000/-. Whether the maximum is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
