TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents availed of small scale exemption during Financial Year, 2000-01 and in the month of April and May, 2001 though their value of clearance had exceeded Rs. 3 crore during the preceding Financial Years; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 37/ADC/CMC/2001, dated 21-9-2001 has imposed a penalty equivalent to amount of duty under Rule 173Q on the ground that they were aware of crossing of limit of Rs. 3 crore and under Rule 173F, they were required to assess duty and to pay the same before removal of the excisable goods; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order, however, has set aside the penalty on the ground that the penalty is ordinarily levied for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrectness of the duty assessed by the assessee on the goods removed, on the basis of information contained in the return filed by the assessee; that the said rule further provides that if the proper officer is of the opinion that the duty has not been paid or short paid, he may require the assessee to produce any documents considered relevant to the determination of the duty payable on the goods and may pass such order of assessment as he thinks fit; that no such direction was ever received by the Respondents under Rule 173-I from the Central Excise Officer; that as soon as it was pointed out to them that the duty has been paid short they had paid the entire amount of duty much before issuance of the show cause notice; that it has been hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 returns showing the value of clearance, they had not disputed the duty liability on the goods removed by them from their factory premises. The primary responsibility of making the payment of proper duty before removal of the goods lies on the assessee itself. Rule 173Q provides that a manufacturer shall be liable to a penalty if he removes any excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Rules. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.) that under Rule 173Q apart from offending goods which are liable to confiscation the person concerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in the rule. It is difficult to ....