TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... [Order]. - In this case the appellants are challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner had confirmed penalty of Rs. 50,000/ as against the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the adjudicating authority. The penalty has been levied under Rule 25 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules 2001 (hereinafter rules). 2. Examined the appeal memorandum and heard both si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard both sides. 4. Ld. Counsel has pleaded that, there is no contravention inasmuch as, the mandate contained in Rule 8 was followed by them. The amount which was due, has been paid, though, after some delay. The argument of the appellant that, there is no default of Rule 8, is without any basis. It is clearly provided in Rule 8(4) that, where the delay in payment of any instalment in a fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apparent from the show cause notice itself) in terms of case laws G.K. Steels Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (53) RLT 1065], Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (55) RLT 334] and Hemant Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (131) E.L.T. 57], no penalty is imposable. 6. It was further pleaded that since there is no specific rule for imposition of penalty in this case, penalty under Rule 27 (i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of commission and omission the contravention continues to exist and voluntary payment before issue of show cause notice cannot grant any immunity to the assessee from imposition of penalty. The duty of excise is payable at the time of removal of goods. If the frequency of fortnightly payment is not adhered to, the entire process of clearance of goods would amount to removal without payment of d....