E.A. No. 622/LB of 2000; decided on 11th October, 2000 Versus E.A. No. 622/LB of 2000; decided on 11th October, 2000

ORDER

ABDUL MAJID TIWANA (CHAIRMAN).--- Heard Being the first appeal, it is admitted to regular hearing. Notice of the appeal has been given to the learned Departmental Representative, who is incidentally, present before the Tribunal in other cases.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant for the admission of the appeal and the issuance of the stay order, we are of the view that it is a short matter which can easily be decided immediately.

3. The appellant has been penalized by the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Faisalabad by imposing on it a penalty of Rs.1,50,000 for its failure to remove the Sugar produced by it from its own godown a few days after the expiry period specified therefore, by the Collector, Excise. despite the. fact that it had paid the excise duty within the specified time.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, with reference to the copy of the challan at page 16 of the appeal, file, submits that it had deposited Rs.100,000 in the Government Treasury on 14-11-1999, the last date for the deposit of the balance amount of central excise duty to clear the entire tax liabilities, and the learned Collector has erroneously made an observation in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order that balance amount of Rs.70,320 was deposited subsequent to the admissible extended period.

5. With reference to PLD 1991 SC 963, the learned counsel contends that the appellant could be penalized only if there had been any wilful evasion of duty on its part but there is no such allegation against it, nor there is anything on the record to that effect.

6. The learned Departmental Representative is not inclined to support the impugned order.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order, dated 24-7-2000 is set aside.

C.M.A./663/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted