Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (12) TMI 173 - HC - Central ExciseCompounded levy scheme- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid adjudication of the Tribunal, the revenue has approached this Court by claiming that the following questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- (i) Whether intimation of the date of closure of the furnace sent after three days due to intervening holidays can he considered as proper when the Trade Notice issued in this regard clearly provides to send the intimations in such cases through post/telegram? Held that- we are of the considered view that this question has to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the dealer-respondent. The Trade Notice No. 31/99 dated 10-8-1999 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh cannot be applied to the period of 24-1-1988 (Sic) to 9-2-1998 as such trade notice cannot have any retrospective effect. (ii) Whether penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) upon a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots/billets falling under sub heading Nos. 7206.90 and 7207.90 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and who opted to pay duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, but fails to pay the whole of the amount payable for any month by the 15th day or the last day of such month, as the case may be, is mandatory or discretionary in nature? (iii) Whether mandatory equal penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO 3)(ii) can be reduced? Held that- the provisions for imposing penalty under Rule 96ZO (3)(ii) of the Rules are held to be mandatory and there is no discretion vested in any authority to reduce the aforesaid amount of penalty on the ground that there was no intention of evading payment of duty or commission of fraud, misrepresentation etc. Accordingly, both the questions No. 2 and 3 are answered against the dealer-respondent and in favour of the appellant-revenue.
|