TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in paying the duty on account of the unit being registered with BIFR. However, the duty along with interest was subsequently paid before a show cause notice dated 4-1-2005 proposing to impose penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules') was issued for default in paying the duty. The respondent-company had in its reply to the show cause notice submitted that since the matter is pending before BIFR, the circumstances existed were beyond it's control and therefore, the duty could not be paid in time. However, the penalty, which was imposed, was upheld by the appellant-Commissioner of Central Excise. Appeal was taken by the respondent-company before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section be twenty-five per cent of the duty so determined; Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso : Provided also that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, then, for the purposes of this Section, the duty, as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account. Provided also that in case where the duty determined to be payable is increased by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only of the duty, but also of the interest calculated under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal has correctly interpreted Rule 25 of the Rules and the penalty could not be imposed on the respondent-company. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/s. Machino Montell (I) Ltd., and another [2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P & H)]. This judgment, as a matter of fact, is in conformity with what we have held herein above. In this judgment, it has been held that an element of evasion of duty must be present. Therefore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court remanded the matter back to the Com....