TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (6) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 applicant cleared their finished products GP Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted 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 permitted under the relevant rule. 4. Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 ingredient of intention to evade payment of duty. ....