AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The only question arose in this matter is whether the penalty imposed by the ld. Tribunal is excessive as the ground which has been specifically stated in the petition that the Petitioner admitted before the Appellate Authority that due to ignorance of law they could not file their return. It has also to be taken into account that before issuance of show cause notice they duly paid the amount along with penalty so can be charged under the provisions of law. Therefore, it would show that there is a bona fide intention in the mind of the Petitioner not to evade the tax. More so, it is fully to be accepted by us on the ground that they have only failed to make such payment within the stipulated time but they have paid the amount along with interest. Therefore, it would show that the plea which they have taken before the authorities that ignorance of law cannot be diluted but it cannot be an excuse in law. That is the reason we think that imposition of penalty should continue but not to that extent as has been done by the Id. Tribunal.
After considering the bonafideness on the part of the Appellant Petitioner we only reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 2,08,709 to Rs. 1 lac. We must also accept the position that the Petitioner had at least shown the bonafideness to consider before the Court that for ignorance of law they could not make such prayer. We restore the order so passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) with reduced amount of penalty.
Both the appeal and the application are disposed of on the above terms.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition is filed, the allegations made in the petition are not admitted.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.