Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1056 - HC - Central ExcisePenalty under Rule 96ZO - Whether the CESTAT is justified in reducing the penalty de hors the Clause (ii) of third proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which is in the nature of imposition of mandatory penalty and the adjudicating authority/appellate authority is bound to impose a penalty equivalent to outstanding amount of duty or ₹ 5,000/- whichever is greater - Held that:- Authorities below had consistently found that there was imminent justifiable reason and there was a genuine cause for the respondents inability to pay the duty amount on the due date. Be that as it may, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court [1965 (10) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court] that imposition of penalty in terms of Rule 96ZO is held to be mandatory - High Court while exercising powers under Section 35G of the Act, exercises such power as a creature of the statute and exercises such power within the statutory scheme and administers the statutory provisions and cannot travel beyond the statute. - No Illegality in the orders of the CESTAT and in the factual situation and in the light of the subsequent developments after the orders of the CESTAT in the year 2005, as a matter of fact, the substantial question of law really do not arise in the present cases for consideration of this Court. - Decided against Revenue. - Decided against Revenue.
|