Tata Cummins Pvt. Ltd. Versus Superintendent, Central GST, Range-IV, Lonand & Ors.
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 939 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2019 (365) E.L.T. 357 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-12-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 14243 OF 2018
Central Excise
AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
Mr. Rohan Deshpande I/b Alisha Pinto for the petitioner
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondent
P.C.
1. By consent of the Counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. Petition arises in narrow facts, which are as under.
2. The Excise Department had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner for recovery of the duty with interest and penalty. The same resulted into confirmation of demands against the petitio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
promptly deposited further sum of Rs. 20/and requested the Department to give benefit of reduced penalty. Under communicated dated 17.10.2017, which is impugned before us, such request was rejected on the ground that within the mandatory period of 30 days, the petitioner had not paid 25% of the penalty amount. Resultantly, the petitioner would have to pay remaining 75% penalty amount.
3. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner should get benefit of reduced penalty. The petitioner's intention was never to challenge the penalty order. In fact, the petitioner submitted to the order passed by the adjudicating authority, paid up the duty and also 25% of the penalty amount, short by only Rs. 18/.
This was purely o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eriod of 30 days for depositing 25% of the penalty is mandatory. However, the distinguishing feature in the said case was that the assessee had disputed the penalty and challenged upto CESTAT level and eventually when lost, sought the benefit of reduced penalty and offered to pay the penalty thereafter. On the other hand, in the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Banian & Berry Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, 2002 (105) ECR 288, it was observed that marginal delay of 2 to 10 days in making fortnightly payment on stray occasions, should not result into penal consequence. The Court had referred to Latin Maxim providing that minor lapses in law should not be visited with penalty.
5. In the facts of the case, the impugned communicatio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =