TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. The interference by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in relation to the dropping of the demand of Rs.20,75,184/- and education cess of Rs.41,504/- and failure to order confiscation of the goods on the ground of the same was not available physically for confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the adjudicating authority should have imposed fine in lieu of confiscation. Held that- The intention of the Legislature being very clear from Rule 8 (3A) that, in case of failure on the part of the assessee to pay the duty within the specified period and further within the grace period certain consequences have to follow, the appellants cannot escape the liability thereunder. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the adjudicating authority should have imposed fine in lieu of confiscation. 3. The case of the appellants is that there was a delay in paying the duty for the month of October, 2006 only of 10 days and that too on account that the appellants had no knowledge about the bouncing of the cheque as the appellants were busy in attending the family member who was permanently ill during the said period, besides being the fact that the amount of duty remained to be paid for 10 days was only Rs.7,938/- which was debited from PLA. Being so, according to the appellants, there was no justification for the Commissioner (Appeals) to interfere with the order passed by the original authority. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 8 of the said Rules. The said Rule provides that the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during a month shall be paid by the 6th day of the following month, if the duty is paid electronically through internet banking and by the 5th day of the following month, in any other case. As the appellants were not paying duty electronically through internet banking they were required to pay the same by 5th day of the following month. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellants had paid the balance amount of Rs.7938/- on 15-12-2006 along with the interest for the delayed period. 7. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 8 provides that if the assessee fails to pay the duty by due date, he shall pay the outstanding amount alongwith the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these rules shall follow." 9. Obviously, therefore, in terms of sub-rule 3A of Rule 8, there is a grace period provided for clearing the balance amount in case it remains to be paid by the due date and the grace period is 30 days from the due date. If, however, the balance amount is not cleared within the said grace period, there are certain consequences contemplated under the said provisions of law. It is settled law that when a provision which prescribes a period of limitation for performance of certain obligation or duty and further makes the provision for consequences in case of failure to perform such duty or obligation within the prescribed period, such a provision has to be held to be mandatory in nature and would require the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
