TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the penalty imposed on the appellants for default in payment of monthly duty under the compounded levy scheme. The penalty was imposed in terms of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules 1944, which provided for penalty for failure to pay the duty due for any month in the same month. As per the rule penalty payable in cases of default in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h cases, as per proviso (ii) above, the manufacturer concerned is liable to pay in addition to the duty payable a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding or Rs. 5000/- whichever is greater. There is no dispute that the penalty of Rs. 7,79,272/- held liable to be paid by the appellants in the impugned order is in terms of the above provision. 2. Ld. Consultant submits that duty for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty in view of the language of the provision. The issuance of Notification No. 11/2000-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2000 did not alter the duty which the assessee was liable to pay under the compounded levy scheme. Ld. JCDR submits that the Apex Court held in its judgment in UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] that when the statute provided for imposition of penalty eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty along with interest thereon at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum calculated for the period from the 11th day of such month till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount; and (ii) a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater Both provisos (ii) to sub-rule 3 of 96ZO and 96ZP are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty for default of payment of duty in the four months involved in accordance with law. As regards the claim that no penalty was payable for the reason that expression duty figuring in the Rule 96ZP was defined only on 1-3-2000, I find the argument to be unreasonable. As the assessee operated under the scheme and discharged its monthly duty liability in terms of the scheme it cannot entertain a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
