2001 (10) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as in this case the details of the transfer of vehicles from one Regional Sales Office (RSO) to another RSO during the period 1-4-98 to 30-9-98 along with the details of differential duty involved due to such transfer were not furnished to the department till the preventive officers visited the unit and had it not been for the detection of non-payment by Department, substantial revenue would have been lost by the department and the plea of bona fides should be construed only in this factual background of non-payment of substantial amount of duty at the relevant time when the duty ought to have been paid. The Revenue also submits that the delayed payment of duty by itself would not absolve the assessee of the liability to penalty under law. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T has not accepted the contention of the assessee in that case to set aside the penalty, in view of the fact that they had paid duty well before issue of show cause notice and the CEGAT did not set aside penalty but only reduced the quantum thereof under Rule 173Q. Therefore, the Revenue has prayed that the portion of the order-in-appeal allowing the appeal of the assessee as regards penalty under Section 11AC and further penalty of Rs. 45,000/- under Rule 173Q be set aside and the order-in-original No. 56/99 dated passed by the original authority be restored fully. 2. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal and sought for allowing the appeal. 3. Shri R. Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents took ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....79/16-3-98 Oct. '97 210996.00 38440/16-3-98   3837.00 980/16-3-98 Nov. '97 23974.00 38441/16-3-98    409.00 981/16-3-98 Dec. '97 28996.00 38442/16-3-98        6.00 982/16-3-98 Jan. '98 76252.00 12595/15-7-98   2248.00 227/15-7-98 Feb. '98*   3074.00 12596/15-7-98     107.00 228/15-7-98 It was based on these details, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed in para 6 of his order that they have been paying duty after getting those details and he quoted one incidence where the duty has been paid after one year and four months. In other words, there was no sacrosanct and legal basis about payment of dut....