ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned order, the authorities below have confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 29,59,520 against the appellants and have imposed personal penalty of Rs. 16,72,700 on the ground that during the period September 1997 to January 1999 and from Feb.’99 to March ’99, the appellants have not discharged their duty liability in terms of the provisions of Rule 96ZP (3). The said duty now has been deposited by the appellants as recorded in the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner. As such, after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants does not dispute the duty confirmation and submits that since the appellant was passing through difficult financial time, the duty burden was not being discharged by them in time and on the date required to do so. However, since subsequently the appellants became financially rich, they deposited the amount in question. In such circumstances, he submits that the penalty amount Rs. 16.72 lakhs imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Rule 96ZP (3) is not justified. For the above proposition, he relies upon the various decisions of the judicial as also qua-judicial authorities.
3. We have heard Shri A.K. Mondal, Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue.
4. Inasmuch as the appellant is not disputing the duty confirmation and interest, we uphold that portion of the order passed by the authorities below. As regards the penalty, we take note of the various decisions laying down that the penalty imposed under the provisions of Rule 96ZP (3) laying down 100% penalty equivalent to duty amount are not mandatory and only laid down the maximum quantum of penalty which can be imposed. The appellants have showed their bona fide by depositing the amount, though later. As such, though there has been definitely as contravention of the provisions of law, but in view of the fact as explained by the Ld. Consultant, the penalty quantum is required to be reduced. Accordingly, we reduce the same to Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lakhs only). But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty; the appeal is otherwise rejected. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.