9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. 306-307/SSS/RTK/2007 dated 30-5-07 passed by CCE (Appeals), Gurgaon by which penalty on the respondent imposed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11AC was reduced to 25% of the amount of penalty. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are in brief as under :- 2.1 The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of AAC, AAAC and ACSR condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above-mentioned duty and imposition of penalty on the Respondent under Section 11AC. The Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 5-10-06 confirmed the duty demand and ordered appropriation of the amount earlier paid by them vide PLA debit entry No. 18 dated 2-2-06 and beside this, imposed penalty of Rs. 76,775/- on the Respondent s company under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 11AC is available only if the amount of duty together with interest and 25% of duty amount as penalty is paid within 30 days of the order of the original, while in this case penalty equal to 25% of the demand confirmed has not been paid within the stipulated period and was paid only on 17-1-2000 and thus the conditions for availing the concession of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. He pleaded that in view of these circumstances, the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.) and also the judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Rohtak v. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209 (P H) would be applicable and hence the Respondent would be eligible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Delhi High Court judgment in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI (supra) and the judgment of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Rohtak v. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. (supra) would be applicable. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue s appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
