TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Order]. - Brief facts of the case are such that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Stampings falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and having Central Excise registration. The appellant is paying Central Excise duty on monthly basis as provided in Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. On scrutiny of the monthly returns i.e. ER-1 for the month of February, 2008, it was noticed that the appellant had not paid the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 80,000/- on or before 5-3-08 as required under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On pointing out, the appellant paid the said amount of duty on 16-5-08 i.e. after 73 days from the due date. It was also noticed that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty equal to the duty imposed on the appellant is very harsh. He also relied upon the several decisions of the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the learned SDR submitted that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are very clear and once the rule has been contravened, the goods have to be deemed to have been removed without payment of duty and the manufacturer has to be penalized accordingly. He submits that Rule 25 provides for penalty in the case of removal of the goods without payment of duty and therefore it is Rule 25 which is correctly applicable and therefore the penalty imposed is justifiable. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her Section 11AC of Central Excise Act was attracted, which is not the case before us. 11. On the other hand, we find the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Parekh Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Belapur - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 298 (Tri.-Mumbai) and in the case of Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.), are applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the specific provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 discussed above, the appellant is liable to pay penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. However in view of the fact that provision of Section 11AC are not attracted and there was only delay in payment of duty and there was no clandestine removal, there is enough justification for reducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
