TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the penalty in this case equal to the duty demand confirmed has been imposed under the proviso to Rule 96 ZO (3) according to which penalty equal to duty payable is imposable when the duty in respect of a month not paid by the due date or is short paid, but this penal provision has been held to be unconstitutional by the judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2010 (11) TMI 83 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). - Decied against assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1949 of 2002 - Final Order No. 50773/2015 - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 96 ZO (3). The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut I vide order-in-original dated 27/2/02 by which the Commissioner confirmed the above-mentioned duty demand against the appellant alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant company under Rule 96 ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner while confirming the duty demand, observed that the assessees plea that the demand having been issued beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is time barred, is not acceptable, as in the provision of Rule 96 ZO (3) no time limit has been prescribed for demand of duty which has not been paid or has been short paid, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of by Honble High Court vide order dated 07/4/14 by which Honble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the duty liability for the financial year 1999-2000. Honble High Court in the order has observed that the Tribunal has not considered the duty liability for the financial year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO (3) after examining as to whether the option as required under Rule 96ZO (3) had been given by the appellant for 1999-2000. 1.6 With regard to the Departments appeal against the Tribunal order, Honble High Court vide order dated 21/11/14 remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh. 1.7 The matter of confirmation of duty demand remanded by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unals order dated 07/10/05 reducing the penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the Commissioners order imposing penalty equal to the duty demand pleading that the payment of duty during the period from December 1999 to March 2000 on the basis of actual production was not bonafide in as much as no intimation had been given to the Department regarding lesser payment of duty and the short payment of duty was discovered only in course of scrutiny of the RT-12 returns. He, therefore, pleaded that this amounts to suppression of relevant facts and malafide intention and hence penalty equal to the duty demand confirmed has been correctly imposed and as such the Tribunals order reducing the penalty to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
