TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber of the Tribunal. The third member has agreed with the view of the Member (Technical). The issue in dispute relates to a direction that has been issued to the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25 lacs by way of pre-deposit of penalty as against the full amount of penalty of Rs. 88.80 lacs. In the present case, the facts, briefly, are that during the course of the scrutiny of ER-1 Forms between March 2008 and June 2008, it was found that the assessee had defaulted in the payment of excise duty. The assessee submitted details of the duty demand which were got verified from the bankers. On verification, it was found, admittedly, that out of 32 cheques in all, 18 had consistently been returned by the Bank for insufficiency of fund and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5000/- could have been imposed by way of penalty. In the present case, it was further submitted that the assessee had eventually deposited the entire duty of Rs. 88.80 lacs. At the outset, it would be necessary to clarify that the observations made in the present order are confined only to the disposal of the appeal against the order of the Tribunal on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. Rule 8 of the Rules provides interalia that the duty on goods removed from the factory or warehouse during a month shall be paid by the sixth day of the following month, if duty is paid electronically and by the fifth day of the following month, in any other case. Sub-rule (3) of the Rule 8 provides that if the assessee fails to pay the amount of ....