TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 38/2007 (V-II) CE dated 10-8-2007, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the imposition of penalty. In terms of the Order-in-Original No. 07/2006 dated 29-9-2006, the appellants have already deposited the duty along with interest and are contesting the imposition of penalty. The allegation is that they were clearing the physician samples during the period from May 2005 to October 2005 and discharged the duty liability after arriving at the value of such goods as per the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The allegation is that they have not arrived at the value of the goods in terms of the Board s Circular No. 813/10/2002-CX dated 25-4-2005 wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s challenge against the assessment made by the Commissioner must fail. Accordingly, the demand of duty raised in the impugned order is sustained. 6. In relation to the penalty imposed on the assessee, we have found substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel. The Commissioner found violations of Rule 4 and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the assessee. Rule 4 required correct assessment of excisable goods and Rule 6 required payment of appropriate duty thereon. The Revenue has no case that the assessee did not self-assess the goods or pay duty thereon. In other words, it is not their case that the goods in question were removed otherwise than in terms of Rule 4 and 6. Hence we are unable to sustain the penalty impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture (supra). Therefore it is clear that there was no deliberate intention to evade payment of duty. It is the only method of valuation which was under dispute. Once the dispute has been settled and the assessee had paid the duty along with interest, therefore there was no reason for imposition of penalty. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in an identical situation has taken a view that penalty is not leviable in such circumstances as there was no violation of Rule 4 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I am inclined to follow the ratio of the Chennai Bench s order cited supra. In view of this finding arrived by me which is supported by the Chennai Bench s judgment, I see no reason to uphold the imposition of equal penalty. The penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
