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: (i) Whether penalty equal to the duty liability for delayed payment under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained; (ii) whether interest was payable on the delayed duty amount.
Issue (i): Whether penalty equal to the duty liability for delayed payment under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained.
Analysis: The delay in payment was admitted, but the rule providing for a penalty equal to the outstanding duty for even slight delay had been held to be excessive and arbitrary by the High Courts. The authority noted that while mandatory equal penalty could not be imposed in every case, a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the contravention could still be imposed.
Conclusion: The equal penalty was not sustained and was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs.
Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the delayed duty amount.
Analysis: Since the duty had admittedly been paid beyond the due dates, interest followed under the provision governing delayed discharge of monthly duty liability.
Conclusion: Interest was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The order was modified by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs while sustaining the interest demand.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision prescribing a mandatory penalty equal to the duty for slight delay cannot be applied mechanically where it is excessive, and the penalty must be commensurate with the contravention; interest remains payable on delayed duty.