TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration. Clause (d) refers to contravention of any of the provisions of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty (emphasis provided). Admittedly the excisable goods were entered in records, cleared on Central Excise invoices and duty was also paid subsequently, though belatedly along with interest. As such, the said clause (d) is also not attracted. In such a scenario, the invocation of Rule 25 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty is not in accordance with the law. - E/930, 2087, 2088, 2089/2006 - A/42-45/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 10-1-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.R. Dixit, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. M.K. Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Arc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial crunch and delay in the receipt of payments from their customers. In any case, submits the ld. Advocate that the appellant stands sufficiently penalized for their action in not depositing the duties in time, by way of interest. As such, further imposition of penalties was not justified. In any case submits the Id. Advocate that Rule 25, which provides for imposition of penalties in such cases is not attracted, as held by the Tribunal in a number of decisions and a general penalty can be imposed in terms of Rule 27, which provides maximum penalty of Rs. 5000/- only. 4. Countering the arguments, Id. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and specifically draws our attention to the observations made by Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty is not in accordance with the law. 6. We find that above view is also supported by the Tribunal s decisions in the case of M/s. Condor Power Products P. Ltd. [2007 (210) E.L.T. 137 (Tri. - Del.)], M/s. Automotive India (Raipur) Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (203) E.L.T. 402 (Tri. - Del.)] and CCE, Allahabad v. R.K. Cigarettes (P) Ltd. [2007 (213) E.L.T. 367 (Tribunal) = 2007 (79) RLT 804 (CESTAT - Del.)]. It has been held in the said decisions of the Tribunal that delay in payment of duty due to financial crisis will not attract penalty under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, but the said contravention would attract penal provisions of Rule 27, which provides maximum penalty of Rs. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
