K.C.D Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 January, 2005

0
50
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Calcutta
K.C.D Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005 (101) ECC 575
Bench: J T V.K.


ORDER

V.K. Jain, Member (T)

1. Heard Shri A.K. Biswas, Advocate for the Appellant. He has taken us to the Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and submits that no penalty is imposable in their case as they have paid the duty subsequently. He also take us the objection that the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner but it was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner. He submits as per Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules no penalty is imposable.

2. Heard Shri K. Sanyal, Ld. JDR for the Revenue. He points out that in the Central Excise Act and Rules it is the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner so there is no difference in the duties of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner can be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner as per the law. Shri Sanyal points out to Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 where a specific provision about the interest has been made on the outstanding dues as such he submits that the lower authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) were correct in directing the assessee to pay the interest. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has observed in para 7 as under:

“I find as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Rule 8(4) they had to pay duty from Account current only and in the event of failure it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty. The appellant paid the duty from RG 23A Part (II) they had not cleared without payment of duty and respective duty involved is rightly recoverable and penalty and interest have to be paid.”

Keeping (sic) the above observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) he submits that the penalty has been correctly levied on the Appellant.

3. I have heard both sides. After hearing I find that there is a provision for charging interest under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and as far as imposition of penalty is concerned Commissioner (Appeals) has given adequate grounds for imposing the penalty. The duty involved in this case is Rs. 52,508 and the penalty imposed is Rs. 15,000. I direct the Appellant to pay Rs. 30,000 within 8 weeks from the date of issue of this order. Upon Payment of this amount, the rest of the duty and the penalty shall remain dispensed with. Compliance and hearing on 1.4.2005.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *