Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the assessee paid duty at the lower rate during the pendency of writ petitions under an interim stay, and whether the Revenue was entitled to enhancement of the penalty.
Analysis: The assessee's payment of duty at the lower rate was not voluntary default, because the High Court had stayed operation of the provisional order revising the annual capacity of production under Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, and the department also permitted payment at the earlier rate during the subsistence of that stay. The finding that the assessee had chosen not to comply with the provisional order was therefore incorrect. The record also showed that the department had been issuing demand notices during the pendency of the writ petitions, so the premise of departmental laxity was unsustainable. The penalty imposed on that basis could not stand, and there was no basis to enhance it to the maximum.
Conclusion: The penalty was set aside, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for enhancement was dismissed.