Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 791 - CESTAT NEW DELHIInitiation of proceedings for imposition of penalty - Respondent are a rolling mill operating under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZP - There was delay in discharge of monthly duty liability by the due date which attracted equal amount of penalty in terms of Rule 96 ZP (3) – Held that:- Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in [ 2009 (4) TMI 170 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] has held in clear terms with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that though there is no limitation period for initiating penal proceedings for failure of discharge the duty liability by the due date, the penal proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period and it would be reasonable to adopt a period of five years in this regard and accordingly held that the penal proceedings initiated after five years are not sustainable. Similar view is again adopted by Punjab & Haryana High Court in a different case - There is no contrary judgment of any High Court or Apex Court – Department’s appeal is without any merit – Decided against the Revenue.
|