Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/678/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 678 of
2008
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS, SURAT - I - Appellant(s)
Versus
SAHELI
SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GAURANG H BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PARESH M DAVE for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 16/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated
12.10.2007, by which the Tribunal was pleased to delete penalty of
Rs.3,00,000/- imposed on the assessee by the Commissioner, under
Rule-96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules.
2. Initially,
the Deputy Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- under
Rule-96ZQ on the ground that the assessee had not paid the duty
within the time, as required under Sub-rule(1) of Rule-96ZQ. In the
appeal of the assessee, the Commissioner reduced the penalty from
Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. This order was challenged by the
Department as well as by the assessee in separate appeals. The
Revenue’s appeal came to be dismissed by the CESTAT at Mumbai, by an
order dated 04.10.2005. The assesse’s appeal came to be allowed by
the impugned order. The Revenue filed an Application for
Rectification of the Mistake, which also came to be dismissed by a
further order dated 12.10.2007.
3. Having
heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the
orders on record, we find that the Tribunal was prompted to delete
the penalty under Sub-rule(5) of Rule-96ZQ, on the ground that the
entire duty along with interest was paid by 31.07.1999, by the
assessee. The Commissioner also, in his appellate order, recorded
that the appellant did not deposit the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by due
date i.e. 06.09.1999, but, instead deposited such amount on
31.07.2009. It, thus, becomes clear that instead of depositing the
duty within the first half of the month, as required under
Sub-rule(3) of Rule-96ZQ, the assessee did deposit the amount before
the end of the month, that too with interest.
4. In
that view of the matter, we do not find any defect in the order
passed by the Tribunal, which considering the provisions contained in
Sub-rule(5) of Rule-96ZQ, in the facts of the case, reduced the
penalty.
5. In
the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
(Ms.
SONIA GOKANI,J.)
Umesh/
Top