TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein it has been held that Rule 96(ZO(3) provides the levy of equal amount of penalty to the duty short paid/unpaid and authority has no discretion to impose the penalty lower than the amount of duty involved - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. - 221 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2014 - Hon'ble Rajes Kumar And Hon'ble Shashi Kant,JJ. For the Appellant : Piyush Agrawal,S. K. Mishra For the Respondent : R. C. Shukla ORDER Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. C. Shukla, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 16th October, 2009, passed in Excise Appeal No.E/2689 of 2007, by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest and also levied the penalty at Rs.20,000/- under Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut on the ground that Rule 96 ZO(3) provides the levy of penalty equal to the amount of short paid duty, and therefore, the amount of penalty ought to have been levied at Rs.2,66,667/-. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal and imposed the penalty of Rs.2,66,667/-. It may be mentioned that against the order of Assistant Commissioner, levying the penalty at Rs.20,000/- no appeal has been filed by the appellant. Against the order of Commissioner(Appeals) the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded back the matter to the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age 343. Sri R. C. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents submits that the question of validity of Rule is not subject matter of consideration in the present case. The default is admitted by the appellant in as much as the order of the Assistant Commissioner, levying the penalty at Rs.20,000/- has been accepted by the appellant and no appeal has been filed. The only question for consideration is whether the Adjudicating Authority has a discretion to impose the lesser penalty than the amount provided under Rule 96 ZO, which provides the amount of penalty equal to the duty short paid/not paid. Relying upon the decision of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors(supra), submitted that Assistant Commissioner could not exercise his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
