TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounded Levy Scheme vide Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 during the material period. They were liable to pay duty at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per month as fixed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the said scheme. During the months of May, 1998, June, 1998, July, 1998 and Oct.1998, their furnace had to be closed down due to pow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late authority reduced this penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee is still aggrieved against this penalty, saying this it is too harsh. Hence this appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that they had no intent to evade payment of duty. They had only waited for the outcome of their abatement claims so as to be able to pay the correct amount of duty. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,83,920/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (T) = 2004 (60) R.LT. 422 (CEGAT-DEL)] (wherein penalty under Rule 96ZP was reduced.) Ld. DR has vehemently opposed further reduction of penalty in this case. He has submitted that the Tribunal is not competent to reduce penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3). In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Pee Aar Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was failure to pay duty within the due date. The penalty challenged in the instant appeal is one imposed under the 4th proviso to sub-rule 3 of 96ZO, a provision which, as already noted, is pari materia with the 4th proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP. Hence the High Court's ruling seems to be equally applicable to a penalty under the 4th proviso to Rule 96ZO(3). In the instant case, the original....