Shree Ramanuj Prints Vs. Cce

Shree Ramanuj Prints vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 26, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28105

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/28105
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S T G.R., P Bajaj
Decided On: Apr 26, 2002
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Ramanuj Prints

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(82)ECC297

Excerpt

.....impugned order-in-appeal dated 26.11.2001 vide which the commissioner (appeals) had affirmed the order of the additional commissioner imposing penalty on the appellants but had reduced the penalty amount from rs. 12,00,000 to rs. 10,00,000.4. the facts are not much in dispute. the appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. they are working under the capacity based compound levy scheme, as contained in rule 96zq of the central excise rules. they were required to pay excise duty of rs. 6 lacs before 15th april, 1999 for the month of april, 1999 and similarly, by 15.5.1999 for the amount of may, 99. they, however, failed to pay the amount of these duties by the prescribed dates but paid in instalments after due dates. therefore, penalty under sub-rule (5) of rule 96zq of the rules had been imposed on them.5. so far as the delay in payment of duty amount on the part of the appellants is concerned, the same has not been disputed. the learned counsel has contended that this delay occurred due to the bona fide mistake on account of change in sub-rule (5) of rule 96zq. till 28.2.99 the duty was payable at the end of the month. it is only after amendment, the duty became payable by 15th of the month but again in august, 99, the rule was again amended and the original provision in the rule for the payment of duty was restored. the learned counsel, has further contended that duty had been paid by the appellants alongwith interest and the penalty imposed on them is quite heavy and exorbitant.6. the learned sdr has not contested the contentions of the learned counsel regarding amendment of sub-rule (5) of rule 96zq of the rules, from time to time and the payment of duty by the appellants with interest. she has, however, contested that the payment of penalty by the appellants is mandatory under that rule on account of their failure to pay duty, within the period stipulated therein, during the months of april and may, 99.8. since the duty has already been.....

Full Judgment

2. The pre-deposit of penalty amount is waived and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits with the consent of both the sides.

3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26.11.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner imposing penalty on the appellants but had reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 12,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000.

4. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. They are working under the Capacity Based Compound Levy Scheme, as contained in Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules. They were required to pay excise duty of Rs. 6 lacs before 15th April, 1999 for the month of April, 1999 and similarly, by 15.5.1999 for the amount of May, 99. They, however, failed to pay the amount of these duties by the prescribed dates but paid in instalments after due dates. Therefore, penalty under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules had been imposed on them.

5. So far as the delay in payment of duty amount on the part of the appellants is concerned, the same has not been disputed. The learned Counsel has contended that this delay occurred due to the bona fide mistake on account of change in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ. Till 28.2.99 the duty was payable at the end of the month. It is only after amendment, the duty became payable by 15th of the month but again in August, 99, the rule was again amended and the original provision in the rule for the payment of duty was restored. The learned Counsel, has further contended that duty had been paid by the appellants alongwith interest and the penalty imposed on them is quite heavy and exorbitant.

6. The learned SDR has not contested the contentions of the learned Counsel regarding amendment of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, from time to time and the payment of duty by the appellants with interest. She has, however, contested that the payment of penalty by the appellants is mandatory under that rule on account of their failure to pay duty, within the period stipulated therein, during the months of April and May, 99.

8. Since the duty has already been paid by the appellants alongwith the interest and keeping in view the amendment made in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, from time to time and the facts, circumstances, financial hardship of the appellants, as pleaded by the counsel, in our view, non-payment of duty in time by the appellants only for two months i.e., for April and May, 99 could not be said to be intentional and deliberate. Therefore, keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, we reduce the penalty amount to Rs. 10,000. Except for this modification in the impugned order, the appeal of the appellants otherwise stands dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Shree Ramanuj Prints vs Cce Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge S T G.R., P Bajaj