9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was issued by the Revenue demanding duty for the period 1-12-2000 to 31-7-2005 on such dross and skimming. The appellant contested the show cause notice only to that part of the duty involved in the period 1-12-2000 to 28-2-2005 and discharged the duty liability for the period 1-3-2005 to 24-7-2005 along with interest also put defence for non imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for the period 1-3-2005 to 24-7-2005 and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant along with interest and dropped proceedings for the period 1-12-2000 to 31-7-2005. The adjudicating authority also imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Appellant preferred, an appeal, to the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) against penalty, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 11A are attracted to this case. He submits that the order-in-appeal is to be upheld. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the appellants were issued show cause notice for the demand of the duty on the Aluminium Dross Skimming for the period 1-12-2000 to 31-7-2005. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings 1-12-2000 to 28-2-2005 and is not being disputed by both sides. Since the appellant is not challenging the amount of the duty and the interest for the period 1-3- 2005 to 31-7-2005 the impugned order to the extent, it upholds the confirmation of the demand and the interest is correct and does not require any interference. 6. As regards the penalty, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account: Provided also that in case where the duty determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available, if the amount of duty so increased, the interest payable thereon and twenty-five per cent of the consequential increase of penalty have also been paid within thirty days of the communication of the order by which such increase in the duty takes effect. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that - (1) The provisions of this section shall also apply to cases in which the order determining the duty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission made by the Id. Advocate it is a fact that the appellant should have been vigilant and careful in reading the provisions of the law and it was for him to follow the law and should have started paying duty from 1-3-2005. Having failed to do so, there is violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such, penal provisions under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 get attracted. The penalty is imposable under the said Rule is Rs. 5,000/- and I hold that this penalty is imposable on the appellant. I direct the appellant to deposit the amount of penalty of Rs. 5,000/ immediately. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it imposes penalty on the appellant under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
