TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation in the proportionality of penalty imposed considering the amounts involved and period involved – Penalty in the present case reduced – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Appeal Nos.E/419, 420/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2013 - Shri Mathew John, J. For the Appellants: Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri D.P. Naidu, Addl. Commr. (AR) JUDGEMENT There are two appeals being considered in this proceeding. Both are on the same issue relating to the same company but to different manufacturing units of the company. Appeal No. E/ 419/2012 Relating to Unit-II Tiruchirapalli 2. Appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods and were paying excise duty on monthly basis as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellant submits that the delay in payment of duty occurred due to a financial crunch faced by the appellant for a short period. The default was made good in very short time of 13 days. Interest for delayed payments has been paid. Now the only contravention that remains is that duty was not paid on individual clearances as required under Rule 8(3A) during a period of 11 days. The duty payable during this period was Rs.10,82,399/-. For such an offence of minor nature the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed is disproportionate. 7. The Counsel also points that the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd -2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj) held that in such circumstances only penalty under Rule 27 can be imposed in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered arguments on both sides. In this case, there is no doubt that the provisions of section 11AC is not attracted. The dispute is about applicability of Rule 25 (a). Both sides have quoted judgments in their favour. 11. The Ld Advocate for the appellant relies on the following decisions:- (i) CCE Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd-2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj) (ii) Shree Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel Co Vs. CCE -2011 (263) ELT 279 (Tri-Del) (iii) Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE-2012 (276) ELT 273 (Tri-Mum) 12. The Ld. A. R. for Revenue relies on the following decisions:- (i) Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd Vs UOI-2003 (156) ELT (Bom); (ii) Siddheswari Industries Vs. CCE-2010 (259) ELT 144 (Tri-Ahmd); (iii) A. R. Metallurgicals P Ltd Vs. CCE -2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
