2014 (10) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stions of law:- "(i) Whether under the compounded levy scheme, the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96(ZP) permitting imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty for delay in payment of duty, without any discretion and without having regard to the extent and circumstances of delay in payment of duty, could be held to be ultravires of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether mandatory penalty equal to amount of duty on the assessee in case of violation of the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96(ZP) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be waived at the discretion of any authority having regard to the extent and circumstances of delay in payment of duty? (iii) Whether provisions of Section 11A of the Central....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o March 2000 within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure A-1) imposed penalty of Rs. 1,66,407/- (i.e. equal amount of the duty liability) under Rule 96ZP(3) of the 1944 Rules read with Section 3A of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure A-2) set aside the imposition of penalty. Against the order dated 22.3.2010 (Annexure A-2), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 7.6.2013 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal by relying upon the judgment of this Court in CCE v. Hari Concast Ltd. 009 (242) ELT 12.....