Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 370 - AT - Central ExciseReduction in penalty imposed - whether penalty to be imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5) should be equivalent to the duty late deposited by them or the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice - Held that:- Rule 96ZQ as also Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) were the subject matter of writs pending before various High Courts challenging the vires of the same. Reference can be made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Krishna Processors [2009 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the matters were remanded to various High Courts for deciding the question of vires of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii). It is brought to our notice that Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide their judgment in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals v. Union of India [2010 (11) TMI 83 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the provisions of Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ provide minimum penalty without discretion and without considering extent and circumstances for delay are ultra vires the Constitution of India - Decided against Revenue.
|