2017 (8) TMI 1100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Shri Anand Kulkarni Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that penalty under Rule 25(1) is not impossible in the fact of the present case, as this is not the case of non payment, short payment of duty. This is only the case of delayed payment of duty for which they have already paid interest. The clearances on which duty payment was delayed were recorded in the book of accounts and the same was declared in the quarterly returns, therefore no penalty under section under Rule 25(1) should be imposed. He relied upon the decision in case of Praweg Conveyors Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Kalyan-II[2016(337) ELT 450]. 3. On the other hand Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Learned Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As regard the payment of duty on consignment basis, I agree with the Id. AR that the Hon'ble High Court judgment in case of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra), has clearly held that the duty during the default period is required to be paid on consignment basis. However, appellant have discharged the duty and whatever delay in payment of duty on the basis of date of clearance of the goods, they have paid interest as applicable. This is a case of delay in payment of duty and cannot be construed as case of evasion of duty, therefore, appellant is not liable for penalty under Rule 25. In the judgment cited by the Id. counsel in case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, on the issue of imposition of penalty under ....