9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lesser penalty or to reduce the penalty under Section 11-AC than the amount of duty determined under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - It is thus clear that reduction of penalty without verifying whether the penalty was paid within 30 days, as contemplated by the second proviso, was wrong and illegal and hence deserves to be set aside - the Appeal is allowed but with no order as to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the impugned orders. It appears, even after holding that the allegations made in the impugned show cause notice, regarding suppression and intention to evade the duty, are established beyond any doubt, the penalty has been reduced to Rs. 35,000/- only on the ground that the duty with interest was paid by the respondent-assessee within the time stipulated in the first proviso to Section 11-AC of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmined. There is no dispute that in the present case, the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A and the interest under Section 11-AB was paid by respondent-assessee, However, the penalty was not paid within the period of 30 days referred to in the first proviso. In view, thereof, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the provisions of the second proviso to Section 11-AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
