Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 915 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty - Rule 173Q(1) on the ground that they had contravened certain provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - it appears that the differential amount of duty was paid by the assessee after a visit of preventive officers of the department to the factory - the assessment done by the appellant at the time of clearance of the goods was not provisional assessment as contemplated under Rule 9B. At best, it was a self-assessment under Rule 6(b) - the assessable value determined at the time of clearance of the goods and the duty paid at that time were lower than the correct assessable value required under Rule 173C and the correct amount of duty required under Rule 173F respectively. - Thus the contravention of Rules 173C and 173F is indisputable in this case. Whether a contravention of the above kind would attract Rule 173Q(1) - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the show-cause notice did not allege that the assessee had contravened any Rule with intent to evade payment of duty - the appellant cannot be allowed to say that the penalty should be set aside on the ground that any particular clause of Rule 173Q(1) was not specifically invoked in the show-cause notice - The offence is purely one of contravention of certain provisions of the Central Excise Rules without mens rea. This situation would call for redetermination of the quantum of penalty. In this connection, we have noted that the maximum penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q at the relevant time was three times the value of the goods and the minimum penalty prescribed was Rs.5,000/-. We are of the view that the minimum penalty would suffice the purpose of this case on the facts and circumstances which we have noted. In the result, the quantum of penalty stands reduced to Rs.5,000/-.
|