Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 320 - HC - Central ExcisePenalty under Rule 96ZP of the Rules - Compounding Scheme - Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to impose penalty - Whether the CESTAT, New Delhi was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut and imposing maximum amount of penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Rules? - Held that:- The law as regards imposition of penalty being settled by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile processors [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT], the Department is apparently justified in contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have any its discretionary power to modify and reduce the quantum of penalty in comparison to the quantum of duty liability fixed by the lower authority. The records apparently disclose that the proceedings were initiated in terms of the provisions of law comprises under Rule 96 ZP of the said rules. Apart from the fact that the said rules nowhere provide any discretion to the authorities in the matter of quantum of penalty and the same clearly prescribe that the penalty should be equivalent to the amount of duty payable by the party in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) on assumption that there was no intention to evade payment of duty could not have reduced the quantum of penalty Decided in favor of assessee.
|