Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 1000 - CESTAT, AHMEDABADPenalty - Rule 25 - the appellant defaulted in payment of duty on fortnightly basis in terms of Rule 8 of CER, 2002, though the clearances were affected under statutory invoices and returns were duly filed by them - Rule 8(3A) - Held that: - By delaying payment of duty, an assessee is penalised to the extent of interest required to be paid by him on such delayed payments. The Provisions of Rule 8(3A) relied upon by the SDR are not invocable inasmuch as the same relate to the assessee’s liability to pay duty on each consignment at the time of removal without utilising the credit and it is in the event of failure of the above legal obligation that the goods have to be deemed as having been cleared without payment of duty - In the instant case there is no order passed by any authority requiring the assessee to pay duty on consignment basis. As such I find that the above rule may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case. Such delayed payments would not attract the provisions of Rule 25 and the same would be covered by Rule 27 which provide for maximum penalty of ₹ 5000/- - penalties reduced to ₹ 5,000/- each - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|