9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty amount - the option to pay 25% of the duty is required to be given by the adjudicating authority in terms of the first proviso to Section 11AC. If no such option was given, the order cannot be held to be legal and valid. - if penalty is enhanced by subsequent orders of the appellate authority, the period of 30 days would start running from the date of communication of that order - Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced penalty equal to the duty amount but did not give any option to the assessee to deposit 25% of the enhanced amount within a period of 30 days - Having now raised the penalty amount to the extent of duty, in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in – [2008 - TMI - 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, as per 1st two proviso of Section 11AC, if a person pays duty as determined under the provisions of Section 11A(2) along with interest chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act within 30 days from the date of communication of the order determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this Section shall be 25% of the duty so determined and such benefit of reduced penalty is available only if such reduced penalty is also paid within the above said period of 30 days. In view of the above, I observe that impugned order is incorrect as far as penalty imposed is concerned. The adjudicating officer should have imposed penalty equal to the duty determined and appellant unit was open to avail benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty imposed by Original Adjudicating Authority is deposited within a period of 30 days from the communication of said order, penalty shall stand reduced to that extent. Admittedly, the appellant in the present case deposited 25% of the penalty imposed by Original Adjudicating Authority within a period of 30 days from the communication of the order. As held by the Hon'ble P H High Court in the case of CCE, Rohtak v. J.R. Fabrics Limited - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209 (P H), the option to pay 25% of the duty is required to be given by the adjudicating authority in terms of the first proviso to Section 11AC. If no such option was given, the order cannot be held to be legal and valid. I further note that 3rd and 4th proviso to Section 11AC are to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
