2014 (12) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowing substantial questions of law:- i. Whether under the compounded levy scheme, the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96(ZP) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitting imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty for delay in payment of duty without any discretion and without having regard to extent and circumstances of delay, 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 or reduced at the discretion of the adjudicating authority having regard to extent and circumstances of delay in payment of duty? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f RT-12 returns of the assessee, it was found that it had failed to discharge its liability of ' 1,16,838/- for the months from April, 1998 to September, 1999 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 ' 1,16,838/- (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 13.1.2010 (Annexure A-2) set aside the imposition of penalty. Against the order dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure A-2), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide o....