TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T There are two appeals being considered in this proceeding. Both are on the same issue relating to the same company but to different manufacturing units of the company. Appeal No. E/ 419/2012 Relating to Unit-II Tiruchirapalli 2. Appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods and were paying excise duty on monthly basis as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. For the month of March 2010, they did not pay excise duty payable amounting to Rs. 3,58,77,000/- on the due date that is 31-03-2010. They did not pay the amount with interest before 30-04-2010 either as per provisions of the said Rule. They continued to make clearance of excisable goods during the period 01-05-2010 to 11-05-2010 without payment of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The duty payable during this period was Rs.10,82,399/-. For such an offence of minor nature the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed is disproportionate. 7. The Counsel also points that the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd -2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj) held that in such circumstances only penalty under Rule 27 can be imposed in which case the penalty cannot exceed Rs. 5000/-. 8. The Ld AR for Revenue submits that once an assessee is under default in payment of excise duty payable on past clearances, provisions of Rule 8(3A) stipulating that duty should be paid in cash on each consignment before clearance is attracted. If duties are not so paid, the goods are deemed to be non-duty paid as per the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manibhai Patel Co Vs. CCE -2011 (263) ELT 279 (Tri-Del) (iii) Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE-2012 (276) ELT 273 (Tri-Mum) 12. The Ld. A. R. for Revenue relies on the following decisions:- (i) Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd Vs UOI-2003 (156) ELT (Bom); (ii) Siddheswari Industries Vs. CCE-2010 (259) ELT 144 (Tri-Ahmd); (iii) A. R. Metallurgicals P Ltd Vs. CCE -2011 (263) ELT 411 (Tri-Chennai); (iv) Paras Lubricants Ltd Vs. CCE-2012 (286) ELT 82 (Tri-Mum). 13. I have considered arguments on both sides. The decisions quoted by the Counsel for appellant are the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurasthra Cements and decisions given relying on this decision. As the Ld AR points out the law has changed subsequent to the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
