2010 (3) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. H.P.S. Ghumman, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 impugning the Order dated 03.12.2007 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the Appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent-Assessee partially deposited the duty before 05.09.2009 but the remaining amount of duty was deposited in three different installments. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notice proposing levy of penalty on account of delayed payment of duty. The Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 22.07.2005 imposed penalty of Rs. 9.5 Lac under rule 26 of the Central Excise rules, 2002. The Respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The Counsel also contended that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s Condor Power Products P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad. The Ld. Counsel would submit that the issue involved in the case of Condor Power Products P. Ltd. was totally different. In the said case penalty was levied under Rule 25 of the Rules on account of delayed payment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... absence of mens rea and delay in payment of duty cannot be treated as non-payment of duty with mens rea. In the present case, delay has occurred on account of seizure of record, freezing of accounts by DRI and arrest of Directors of the Company. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was mens rea on the part of Respondent-Assessee in delayed payment of duty. It is not even the case of the R....