TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 2,69,345.81 imposed upon the appellants under the provision of Rule 96ZP(3) on the ground of non-payment of duty by 10th of every month in accordance with the annual capacity fixed by the Commissioner. The appellants are not challenging the confirmation of demand against them, but submit through their Advocate Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee that the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....retion of the authority to impose lesser penalty. Accordingly he submits, while admitting that the duty is required to be paid by them, which has actually been paid along with the interest, that the penalty quantum should be reduced. 2. Shri R.K. Roy, JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that there is nothing on record to show the appellants' inability to pay the duty in time. This fact reflects....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision their Lordships have construed the provisions of Rule 173Q, and Section 11AC [which is pari materia to the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3)] with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Their Lordships have also referred in para 22 to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals. Section 7, sub-section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority to decide upon the quantum of the personal penalty required to be imposed upon the assessees and it is not necessary that 100% penalty should be imposed inasmuch as the said section lays down the maximum of the penalty which may be equal to the quantum of duty evaded by the assessee. We also note that in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650 (T), it....