1998 (6) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant. Shri K.L. Ramteke, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. - This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the applicant by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The applicants have already paid the duty amount of Rs. 7,12,898/- even before the passing of the impugned order. 2. The appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....000/- on the applicant. The learned C.A. submitted that the applicants have already paid the duty amount and the only plea they have is that the penalty on them has been imposed erroneously under Rule 173Q whereas the penalty permissible under Rule 14A, which is the relevant rule, is only a maximum of Rs. 2,000/- therefore it was pleaded that the penalty may be confined to that amount which is per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder that rule will be subject to a maximum of Rs. 2,000/- which may extend to twice the amount of duty. Therefore the penalty under this Rule in any case cannot be in excess of Rs. 2,000/- for imposing higher penalty under Rule 173Q the intent to evade payment of duty has to be established, because the relevant sub-rule which would cover a situation like this i.e. 173(d), which incorporates the i....