2018 (12) TMI 939 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Penalty – delayed payment of duty – Held that:- Gujarat High Court in case of Banian & Berry Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI, [2002 (8) TMI 837 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 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.
–
It is declared that the petitioner shall not have to pay any further amount of penalty – petition disposed off. – WRIT PETITION NO. 14243 OF 2018 Dated:- 14-12-2018 – AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. Mr. Rohan Deshpande I/b Alisha Pinto for the petitioner Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise had quantified the sum at ₹ 57,076/, which comes to 25% of the penalty amount. It is undisputed that within 30 days of the receipt thereof, the petitioner did deposit a sum of ₹ 57,058/. Undisputedly, therefore, the petitioner was short of ₹ 18/of the requirement. The petitioner upon being pointed out, promptly deposited further sum of ₹ 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 am
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
instead of challenging the adjudication and penalty imposed, if an assessee voluntarily deposits the duty and 25% of the penalty promptly, the remaining penalty would be waived. 4. We are conscious of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Vs. Castrol India Ltd. (2012) 286 E.L.T. 194, in which the Court has held that this period 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 &a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =