2006 (12) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 28-2-2005 imposing reduced penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant and ordering payment of interest to be calculated under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of electric motors,  electric fans, and PD pumps....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant that there was no intention to evade the duty since the liability was disclosed from the inception and only the payment was delayed for which interest was chargeable as per the rules. It was argued that Rule 25, which provided for confiscation and penalty was subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act and no penalty was imposable unless the provisions of the rules were contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Since there is no dispute over the fact that the late payment of duty was, according to the appellant, as explained by them from time to time to the Revenue authorities, due to financial crises, and that the returns were duly filed disclosing all these transactions, it would appear that the liability to pay duty was never disputed and that, subject to the liability to pay interest on the delay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extent that Rule 8(3) of the said rules authorized imposing of interest at Rs. 1000/- per day of delay, this Tribunal has already held, in paragraph 9.3 and 110 of the judgment in Automotive India (Raipur) Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE, Raipur, reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 402 (Del.) = 2006 (77) RLT 140 (CESTAT-Del.), that, the words "rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher" occurring in Rule 8(3) ....