9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; For the Petitioner : Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.R. Sharma, D.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which demand has been confirmed should be treated as cum-tax amount and accordingly the demand of Rs. 4,06,660/- should be recomputed after giving benefit of cum-tax amount. (ii) As penalty under Section 78 has been imposed the penalty under Section 76 should be set aside. (iii) The option of reduced (25%) penalty under Section 78 was never extended and therefore the same should also be extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 76 is sustainable. It is also seen that in the case of Ratnamani Metals Vs. CCE - 2013-TIOL-1724-SC-Ah.-CX-P&H, Gujarat High Court held that if the option of reduced (25% of the demand) mandatory penalty has not been extended expressly at the lower levels, the CESTAT can award such an option. 4. In the light of the foregoing, we allow the appeal partially to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
