Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Allied Ferromelt Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(149)ELT237(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with consent.
2. These four appeals are against the imposition of penalty on the applicant either under Rule 96ZO in the case of induction furnace and by 96ZP of the rolling mills or Rule 173Q.
3. The penalty which is the subject matter of appeal E/326/01 has been imposed for late payment of duty Rs. 2 lakhs payable in terms of Rule 96ZP for late payment of duty between April and November 1998. Penalty in appeal E/327/01 under Rule 96ZO is for late payment between April and May 1999. Counsel for the applicant accepts the part of belated payments but requests leniency because the duty could not be paid due to shortage of funds. We do not find this explanation acceptable. The Rules 96ZP and 96ZO are a relaxation of the procedure that then existed of duty having to be paid before each consignment of goods. They require payment on the 15th of each month and at the end of the month for the preceding fortnight. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for any leniency. Appeal E/327/01 also challenges imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the applicant did not pay the duty for the period from 13.8.98 to 24.8.98 and 7.9.98 to 15.9.98. No defence is offered. We therefore confirm the penalty imposed. We therefore dismiss these appeals.
4. Penalty in appeal E/32801 is for short payment of duty during February and March 2000. The explanation again is financial hardship, which we do not accept. We therefore confirm the penalty.
5. Appeal E/32901 is concerned firstly with short payment of duty during December 1999 and January 2000. The duty short paid was Rs. 76000. In these circumstances, we reduce the penalty imposed on the short payment from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 76000/-. Penalty of Rs. 50,000 has also been imposed on the ground that the applicant did not pay duty during the period 23.9.99 to 21.11.99. The Commissioner accepts that the furnace was closed during this period and grants abatement. Representative of the applicant relies upon the trade notice 103/97 issued by the Commissioner informing the trade that in such a situation payment of duty need not be made. In these circumstances, we set aside this penalty.
6. Appeals E/326, 327 & 328/01 dismissed. Appeal E/329/01 allowed in part.