9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industries, [2010 (2) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein, the Court has inter-alia held that as far as statutory obligation of the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself has issued Circular on 22-5-2008 wherein it is clarified that in all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposed the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been passed in accordance with law? (b) Whether Section 35A read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confer jurisdiction upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to offer option to the assessee to pay the reduced penalty within 30 days of receipt of the order in appeal, even though no variation in duty determination by the Central Excise officer is ordered in the order-in-appeal? ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal which came to be disposed of by recording the following findings. .In terms of the above decision of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana it was the duty of the adjudicating authority to give an option to the assessee to pay 25% of penalty in terms of first proviso to the said Section. This having not been done, the order in original cannot be said to be legal and valid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the option given by Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit 25% of penalty within 30 days of communication of his order, is upheld. 11. Shri Samir Chitkara, learned SDR also brought to my notice that interest stands confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) @ 13% per annum whereas the rate of interest during the relevant period was 24% per annum. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. It is, therefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue before the Court in contradiction of the Circular issued by the Central Excise Department. The controversy involved in the present case, therefore, stands concluded by the said decision. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant is not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
