Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000
9. It is a matter of record that the Apex Court in Venus Castings (P) Ltd. case has clearly held that the assessee having exercised the option and agreed for the procedure for payment of duty in terms of Rule 96 ZO (3), is not entitled to subsequently opt out of the scheme before the expiry of the year for which the assessee has commenced the payment of duty. It is also a matter of record in the case in hand, that the Commissioner under order dated 14th October 1997 had fixed the duty liability of the assessee to be Rs. 5,33,333/- p.m. on the basis of working capacity of their furnace to be of 3.2 M.T. The said order remained unchallenged. It is true that the assessee was all the while contending that the working capacity of their furnace was 2.6 M.T. and, therefore, their duty liability could not exceed Rs. 4,33,333/-. However, it is also a matter of record that the assessee neither succeeded in getting the order dated 14th October 1997 modified nor could obtain any relief in that regard from the Honble High Court, except some interim order for a temporary period.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008
11. The expression outstanding amount of duty is proceeded by the word such. The first expression refers to whole of the amount falling due and payable for every month. Being so, as rightly pointed out by the learned DR, the penalty liability will have to be considered on the basis of the duty liability which falls due and payable and where the default occurs in that regard. Merely because part of the duty is paid subsequently it will not amount to full and final discharge of liability as regards the obligation to suffer the penalty for failure to comply with the obligation under the said scheme. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors case, therefore, the department is justified in contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have interfered with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty of equal amount of duty.
1