Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Supertik Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 20 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(81)ECC808, 2002(147)ELT993(TRI-BANG)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. After hearing for sometime with reference to the stay application filed by the party, I find that the matter itself can be disposed of on the limited issue. Accordingly, appeal was taken for regular hearing with the consent of both sides by waiving the pre-deposit for the purpose of hearing the appeal.
2. The appellants are the manufacturers of Hot rerollable products of non-alloy steel i.e. Rectangular Bars, M.S. Bars, M.S. Squares falling under Chapter heading 7214.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants opted to pay duty under provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the rate of Rs. 37,030 per month. As per Rule 96ZP the appellants are required to pay the whole duty on 10th of the same month. But the appellants paid the duty on 10th of the following month.
3. Shri Loknath, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that prior to the amendment the party used to deposit the amount in the subsequent month and as per the practice the party has deposited the amount before 9th of June instead of making payment on or before 10th of May. He said that interest was also paid for belated payment. Further the major portion of the demand was barred by time.
4. Shri Narasimha Murthy, submitted that the question of time bar issue does not arise, since the party was required to pay the duty on 10th of every month. He said that since the party has made belated payment, the Department was justified in imposing the penalty.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. As can be seen from the records, the Assistant Commissioner has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,89,063 besides demanding interest of Rs. 4281 under Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was the contention of the party that the party was not aware of the amendment but used to pay as per the practice and according to unamended provisions.
6. The appellants' Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bihar Ispat Udhyog v. CCE, Jamshedpur , in support of his contention. It was held therein that imposition of maximum penalty equal to quantum of duty is not mandatory. Quantum is in discretion of adjudicating authority. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances particularly in view of the sub missions made by the Counsel that the party was on the bona fide impression to deposit the amount in subsequent month as per the practice and since the entire duty amount was paid with interest I am of the view that reduction is called for in these circumstances. In the view I have taken, quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs. 20,000 as against Rs. 2,89,063. But for this modification, the impugned order is otherwise upheld. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.