9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the appellant No. 2 Shri Jitneder Singh Kushuwha, the authorized signatory of the appellant No.1 has filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant No.1 is a manufacturer of Sugar, falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During February 2009, the appellant had removed the excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 10,42,419/- within stipulated time frame. While scrutinizing ER-1 returns, the Range superintendent of Central Excise had informed the appellant regarding such irregularities. Thereafter, the appellant had partly deposited the duty amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 31.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be deposited within the stipulated time frame. He also submitted letter dated 16.12.2010 and 16.03.2011 addressed to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, informing the reason of non-payment of service tax within the statutory time limit. He also submitted that the appellant had subsequently deposited the balance amount of duty alongwith interest. He further submitted that the appellant no-1 had informed the Central Excise Department through the ER-1 return that it is not in a position to pay the admitted duty liabitly within the schedule time. It is his further submission that since non-payment on tax within the statutory time frame is not attributable to the reason of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement etc, with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited the interest amount for delayed payment of duty. Thus, it is evident that there is no element of suppression, mis-statement, fraud etc, on the part of the appellant No-1 in defrauding the Government Revenue. However, non-payment of duty amount within the time frame will attract the penal consequences provided under Rule 27 ibid. Since the adjudicating authority has not imposed any penalty under Rule 27 ibid, I am not expressing any opinion regarding imposition of penalty under such provisions. Thus, I am confining my findings only to the question of confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. 7. Applicability of Rule 25 ibid in the identical situation, came up for consideration before the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntered in records, cleared on Central Excise invoices and duty was also paid subsequently, though belatedly along with interest. As such, the said clause (d) is also not contravened. After analyzing and examining all these four sub-clauses of Rule 25, keeping in mind the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the invocation of Rule 25 for imposition of penalty for delayed deposit of duty is not in accordance with law. 17. It is also to be borne in mind that Rule 25 starts with the word "Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC............". Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act deals with penalty for short levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. It says that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
