9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed on the assessee, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 4.12.2007, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') was correct in reducing the penalty amount which was imposed as an equivalent amount of duty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act? 2) Whether, without reducing the duty amount and without legal sanctity of any rule or section, CESTAT is empowered to reduce the penalty amount imposed by the adjudicating authority? And 3) Whether the action of the Tribunal by reducing the penalty equivalent to the duty amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nient view by reducing the penalty imposed, which is equivalent to the duty demanded, to ₹ 20,000/=, observing that the equal amount of penalty imposed is a little too harsh. Aggrieved against that portion of the order by which the penalty portion was modified, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. However, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 6. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder :- 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellants had raised a new ground before the first appellate authority that their request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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 sustained. Dilip Shroff's case (supra) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI's case (Supra) has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered.... 9. The above-said decision was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in JT 2009 (7) SC 314 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows: 23. The de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
