TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y taken by the appellant and was recoverable along with interest. The amount, which was deposited by the assessee, was ordered to be appropriated towards the Government account. The adjudicating authority, however, imposed penalty only of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000. It was observed that the duty has been deposited before the issue of the show cause notice. However, the contention that no penalty was imposable or chargeable, was rejected by the adjudicating authority relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (SC) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in PEE AAR Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2004 (170) E.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in view of the settled legal position. He placed reliance on the decisions:- (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV v. Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P & H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 416 (P & H) (b) Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 406 (All.) (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P & H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P & H) (d) CCE & C, Aurangabad v. M/s. Padmashri V.V. Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) = 2007-TIOL-419-HC-MUM-CX (e) CCE, Delhi-IV v. Il....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) was not the maximum penalty, but the only penalty, .......It was observed that, since there was no cross appeal by the department, the court could not enhance the penalty. 6.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV v. Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P&H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 416 (P & H.), while considering the penalty provisions under Section 11AC of the said Act held in paragraph 20 of the judgment: "We are of the view that the language of the statute is clear. If the situation demands imposition of penalty, the same has to be equal to the amount of duty". 6.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CCE, Delhi-IV v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termined, within thirty days, that the person concerned will be entitled to the benefit of paying penalty at the rate of 25% of the duty determined. 7. It is clear that the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Larger Bench in Machino Montell (I) Ltd. for setting aside the penalty and interest, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said decision has been reversed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Except the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan's decision on which reliance is placed by the respondent, the decisions of the other High Courts, i.e., of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay have categorically taken the view that....