9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of short paid duty. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of M.S. Ingots chargeable under sub-heading No.7206.90 of the tariff. For the period of 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1999, admittedly, the appellant has not deposited the duty of Rs.2,66,667/- within the specified period. The appellant has given the option to pay the duty under Rule 96 ZO on the basis of the capacity of the induction furnace of four metric ton. In view of the option given under Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rule the appellant was required to pay central excise duty amounting to Rs.6,66,667/- per month for the period of 1.11.1998 to 31.3.1998, but has paid the duty of Rs.30,66,667/- instead of Rs.33,33,335/-. Thus, there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. M/s. K. C. Alloys & Steel Castings, reported in 2006 Vol. 206 ELT Page 1183. The Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeal) decided the appeal and confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner and the levy of penalty of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved the Revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and modified the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) to the extent enhancing the amount of penalty to the extent of quantum of short paid duty. The Tribunal has held that the issue involved is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, reported in 2008 Vol. 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule. He further submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 and further by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise Vs. M/s. Majestic Auto Ltd, reported in 2013 ELT P.95. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The validity of Rule 96 ZO is not under consideration before us. The default is also not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellant has not deposited the amount within the specified period and has deposited the amount along with the interest beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
