2007 (7) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disputing the fact that they paid the impugned amount of duty of 3550.00 (Rupees three thousand five hundred and fifty) after a delay, for which they have paid interest also @ 24%. The appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 1,30,000.00 (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand) which was imposed by the original authority and which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Authority. 3. We find that in terms o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Rule 57T or all the said accounts, as the case may be, in the manner specified below : (a)………………………………………………………….. (b)………………………………………………………….. (c)…………………………………………………………. (d)…………………………………………………………. (e)……....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....……………………………………………." 4. We find that the cited Rule itself contains a proviso which limits the amount of penalty plus interest plus duty to the value of clearances. Moreover, the expression used in the cited Rule is that the manufacturer shall be liable to a penalty of Rs. 500.00 (Rupees five hundred) per day of the delay. Nowhere it is specified that the pena....