9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an application for early hearing on the ground that the issue raised in this appeal now stands decided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 and this appeal be heard early. 2. Having regard to the aforesaid averment made in this application, the prayer made is allowed. With the consent of the parties, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt and that is not the issue before us. 7. Insofar as imposition of penalty of equal amount, i.e. ₹ 13,15,524/- is concerned, the respondent has challenged the same in appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the ground that the respondent had voluntarily paid the amount before the issuance of show cause notice and therefore, as per the proviso to Section 11AC of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced. It has made the position clear that there is no scope for any discretion. In para 136 of the Union Budget reference has been made to the provision stating that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty. In the Notes on Clauses also the similar indication has been given. 27. Above being the position, the plea that the Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall now be placed before the Division Bench for disposal. 9. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty to ₹ 5,00,000/- which is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. At the same time, as noticed above, the question as to whether proviso to Section 11AC of the Act is applicable to the instant case or not has not been determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
