2006 (8) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spose of C.E.A. No. 64 of 2005 and C.E.A. No. 78 of 2005, which arise out of the same order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8-10-2004. 2. The assessee was governed by 'Compounded Levy Scheme' under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with relevant rules i.e. Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, "1944 Rules"). The excise duty was determined for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The said view has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 4. The revenue has filed C.E.A. No. 78 of 2005 to submit that since Rule 96ZP(3) of the 1994 Rules provides for penalty equal to the amount of duty, the assessee having delayed the payment of duty due without there being any stay, reduction of penalty to 50% was not called for. 5. On the other hand, the assessee has preferred C.E.A No. 64 of 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....view to check delay in depositing the duty due to discourage the assessee from not paying the duty when due. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that no penalty whatsoever was attracted in absence of mens rea. 9. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently exercised their discretion in imposing 50% penalty. Even if two views are possible, the view taken cannot be h....