9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the remand, the Hon ble High Court observed that the only contention raised for the revenue was that the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by the Tribunal though the penalty specified under the statute provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been interpreted by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana to mean minimum penalty in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Illpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 416 (P H) = 2006 (77) RLT 18. 2. By the Order-in-Original, dt. 15-11-03, the Commissioner had confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,71,829/- under Section 11A by invoking the provisions of extended period, disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 27,038/-, order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest for delay in depositing the duty amount as well as the penalty of 25% of the amount confirmed as duty were deposited on 15-12-03 which was also within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the department on the other hand submitted that the proviso to Section 11AC contemplated the deposit being made after the determination of duty under Section 11A(2) and therefore the amount earlier paid during the pendency of the proceedings (Rs. 6,98,867) cannot be considered to be payment of duty as determined by the order which was made subsequently on 15-11-03. It was also submitted that minimum penalty was required to be upheld in view of the decision of the Punjab Haryana High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is misconceived for the simple reason that though the amount was earlier deposited when the adjudication order determining the duty was made, it was ordered to be adjusted and therefore, it should be treated as a payment made within 30 days from the date of the commencement of the order. As regards the rest of the amount payable under the impugned order, the communication dated 17-12-03 and the copy of the TR-6 challan disclose that the entire duty as determined and interest payable duty were paid within 30 days of the communication of the adjudication order. 6. In the context of the above facts, the first proviso to Section 11AC of the said Act is reproduced below : Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case merit reduced penalty under the first proviso to Section 11AC were never involved in that matter. It will be noted even under the second proviso to Section 11AC, it is clarified that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso which was admittedly done in the present case. Therefore, the penalty amount already paid up by the appellant being 25% of the duty determined along with all the other amounts within the period of 30 days warranted no further penalty on the appellant, as the question of penalty equal to the amount of duty cannot arise in such cases. 8. When the impugned order w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
