9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. In this matter, the Hon ble the High Court of Punjab Haryana by their order dated 21st July 2006 in CEA No. 56/2005 [2006 (204) E.L.T. 22 (P H)] while setting aside the order of the reduced penalty imposed by the Tribunal in an appeal which was filed by the Revenue, has remanded the case for fresh decision on the question of levy of penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... established, the quantum is not left to the discretion of the authority. Though, such inflexible rule may not be valid in every situation but condition precedent for levy of penalty is statutorily laid down and in the said situations, making a provision for minimum penalty cannot be held to be arbitrary in any manner. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interpret the plain language of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntent to evade the payment of appropriate duty on their final product. It was, therefore, held that the extended period of limitation for raising the duty demand had been rightly invoked against the noticee. That part of the order of the Tribunal was never challenged by the assessee and became final. However, since the Tribunal reduced penalty to Rs. 10,000/- as against the duty demand of Rs. 73,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble High Court of Punjab Haryana while holding that the language of Section 11AC clearly leaves no room for discretion in the quantum of penalty to be imposed has remanded the matter only on the question of levy of penalty in this case where liability to pay duty determined has become final. Therefore, we have to consider the question of imposition of penalty and a mere mechanical imposition e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
