TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present appeal, the Revenue has challenged the reduction of the penalty on the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of transformer falling under Chapter Heading 85040000 of the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the scrutiny of their accounts, it was observed that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by not paying the duty by due date as specified under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. During the month of June 2002, out of the total duty of Rs. 2,18,931/- for the month, the respondent had paid Rs. 1,49,920/- before the due date and the remaining amount of Rs. 69,011/- was paid on 28.5.2009, i.e. beyond 30 days from the du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- under Rule 27 is not tenable and sustainable in law. He further submitted that the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of default in payment of duty in contravention of Rule 8(1) cannot be equated with evasion of duty attracting Section 11AC and Rule 25, is not proper and legal. It is pertinent to reproduce Rule 8 as below:- "Rule 8- Manner of payment (1) The duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during a month shall be paid by [the 6th day of the following month, if the duty is paid electronically through internet banking and by the 5th day of the following month, in any other case: (3A) If the assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond thirty days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities, due to financial crises, and that the returns were duly filed disclosing all these transactions. It would appear that the liability to pass duty was never disputed and that, subject to the liability to pay interest on the delayed payment, there was no warrant for imposing penalty under Rule 25, since it was obvious that, having disclosed the liability in their returns and pleading financial crisis as the cause of delay, there could not have been any intention to evade the payment of duty. Inference of evasion of duty cannot be drawn from mere delay in making the payment of tax in respect of the transactions already disclosed in the returns which were filed in time. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under ....