TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and 59 of 2013 as according to the learned counsels for the appellant, the issue involved in these cases is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CEA No. 39 of 2013. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 24.7.2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether merely demanding interest and imposing penalty from/on the assessee in case of violation of certain Sections/Rules, the provisions in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght. In the month of July, 1999, the assessee failed to deposit any amount and, thus, failed in fulfilling its duty liability. Accordingly, the assessee was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs. 6.25 lacs and also penalty in terms of 3rd proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Further, in the month of September, 1999, the respondent paid only a sum of Rs. 2.20 lacs in the first fortnight and did not pay any amount in the 2nd fortnight. Similarly, in the month of November, 1999, the assessee did not pay any amount for the first fortnight whereas in January, 2000, it paid only Rs. 1 lac in the first fortnight. In the months of February and March, 2000, the assessee failed to deposit any amount and, therefore, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel, the Special Leave Petition filed against the said decision is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee besides supporting the order of the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Krishna Processors v. Union of India 2012 (280) ELT 186 (Guj.) and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (286) ELT 495 (HP) wherein following the judgment of this Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals (P.) Ltd's case (supra), the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal. This Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals (P.) Ltd's case (supra) de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary. Moreover, exercise of such power by way of subordinate legislation is not permissible when rule making authority for levying penalty is limited to default "with intent to evade duty". 17. The writ petitions of the assessees are allowed and impugned provisions in Rules 96(ZO), (ZP) and (ZQ) permitting minimum penalty for delay in payment, without any discretion and without having regard to extent and circumstances for delay are held to be ultravires the Act and the Constitution. In CWP No.8555 of 2010, penalty has been sustained by the Tribunal to the extent of 100% which will stand quashed without prejudice to any fresh order being passed in accordance with law. It is made clear that if penalty has attained finality as in CWP No. 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loys & Metals (P.) Ltd's case (supra) had held in the following terms:- "7. This issue was discussed threadbare by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgment cited above wherein after discussing the entire law, the Court held as follows:- 15. Applying the above principles to the present situation, the provision for minimum mandatory penalty equal to the amount of duty even for slightest bonafide delay without any element of discretion is beyond the purpose of legislation. The object of the rule is to safeguard the revenue against loss, if any. The penalty has been provided in addition to interest. Mere fact that without mens rea, an can be punished or a pe....