9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendra Textile Processors (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT) substantial question of law raised and admitted is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C.M.A. NO. 2874 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH For the Appellant : Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in modifying the penalty imposed on the assessee, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 27.11.2007, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:- 1) Whether the CESTAT was right in reducing the penalty to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while confirming the order of the lower authorities, insofar as penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is concerned, held that the duty liability has been discharged immediately on receipt of show cause notice and, therefore, was inclined to reduce the penalty from ₹ 2 Lakhs to ₹ 1 Lakh stating that imposition of penalty at ₹ 2 Lakhs was 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. Inspite of notice, the 2nd respondent has not chosen either to appear in person or through counsel. 6. For appreciating the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Machino Montell (2006 (202) ELT 398 (P H)) and Allahabad High Court in Pee Aar Steels Pvt. Ltd. - Vs - CCE, Meerut (2004 (170) ELT 406 (All.)) is to that effect. However, I find that penalty equal to duty demanded is little too harsh and I reduce the penalty to ₹ 1,00,000/= (Rupees One Lakh). The impugned order is otherwise sustained. 7. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India - Vs - Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and Union of India - Vs - Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (JT 2009 (7) SC 314 :: 2009 (238 ELT) 3 (SC)). 8. In view of the subsequent de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed 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 decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore be understood to mean that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
