2009 (9) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Both sides are in appeal against the same impugned order. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant assessee, states that he is not pressing the appeal against the demand of duty and further states that the demanded amount has already been paid. He however, pleads that the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate is not pressing the appeal in relation to the demand of differential duty. We note that in the case of SKF India Ltd. (cited supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that payment of differential duty at a later date is clearly a case of short payment of duty though completely unintented and without element of deceit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that interest is chargeable under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was an obligation, on the appellantassessee to pay the entire amount of duty at the time of removal itself. Therefore, by paying the duty short, the appellants have contravened Rule 173F and consequently they are liable to penalty under Rule 173Q for removal of goods in contravention of Rules. We also note that the adjudicating Commissioner has correctly noted that under Rule 173Q(1)(a), inte....