9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs and as per Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000, was required to discharge duty liability on the basis of annual production capacity. Such duty had been fixed by the competent authority at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lacs per chamber per month. Accordingly, for the month of April 1999, an amount of Rs. 13.5 lacs was required to be paid by the petitioner towards duty on or before 15 April 1999. It is an admitted position that a sum of Rs. 8.5 lacs was paid by TR-6 challan on 15th April 1999 and the balance amount of Rs. 5 lacs was paid on the very next day i.e. on 16th April 1999. 3. According to respondent No. 3, as the petitioner had committed default within the meaning of provisions of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its control from depositing the balance amount by the prescribed date. That the petitioner had deposited the duty to the extent of Rs. 8.5 lacs by the prescribed date and less than half the amount payable remained outstanding on the prescribed date; the said liability was discharged immediately on the next day. That for default of 24 hours, the order levying penalty to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs was not only harsh but unreasonable, especially when one considers the fact that, for the very same default, the loss of revenue for a day was compensated by payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 520/-. In other words, the submission was that the penalty was not commensurate with the default and the authority had not exercised the discretion vested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to levy penalty, even in case where minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to levy penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions. It was, therefore, urged that, in the circumstances, the discretion vested in the authority was not validly exercised and the penalty order was required to be quashed and set aside. In the alternative, it was submitted that, as directed by this Court in the earlier case of Vitrang Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the matter be restored to the file of respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh in light of the legal position pronounced by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 5. It is necessary to record that though the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed and set aside, restoring the matter to respondent No. 3 for the purposes of fresh adjudication in light of the legal principles enunciated by the Apex Court and this Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8.Accordingly, the order in original dated 29 December 2000 imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Rules (Annexure "C") is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the submissions that may be made by the petitioner at the time of hearing in light of the settled legal position. As a consequence, the appellate order dated 11th June 2002 (Annexure "D") would not survive. The petition is accordingly disposed of. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
