1991 (10) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en before the show cause notice. 2. Shri Raghavan, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the issue in the present appeal is with reference to the propriety of the penalty levied under the impugned order. The learned counsel urged that the impugned order itself says that the show cause notice does not allege intentional evasion and, therefore. Rule 173Q(1)(d) is not attracted. He further submitted that during the visit of the officers on 28-3-1990 they found a photograph of shuttle winding machine falling under Chapter T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and since the Department felt that the duty should have been paid before the clearance of the goods in question, the appellant paid duty of Rs. 1,14,669 on 17-4-9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubstantial revenue and the plea of bonafides should be construed only in this factual background of non-payment of substantial amount of duty at the relevant time when the duty ought to have been paid. Delayed payment of duty would not by itself absolve the assessee of the liability to penalty under law. 4. I have considered the submissions made before me. The question is with reference to the leviability of penalty. The appellant is not disputing the fact of its duty liability and duty in a sum of Rs. 7,82,760 had been admittedly paid though voluntarily by the appellant. The fact remains that this duty was paid only consequent on the visit of the authorities on 28-3-1990 and finding the clearance of a shuttle winding machine falling under....