9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Surat Vs. Rajeshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held against the assessee which was again appealed by assessee in the Supreme Court reported in [2016 (5) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CST-II Vs. Top Security Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 443 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the impugned order is upheld except for penalty under Section 76 ibid. - Decided partly in favour of appellant X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay 25% (reduced) mandatory penalty under Section78 ibid as the option was not given at the lower levels. As regards the imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 ibid simultaneously and option for reduced (25%) mandatory penalty under Section 78, CESTAT in the appellant's own case vide order dated 11.09.2015 (supra) held as under : - " We have considered the contentions of the appellant. There is no doubt that the commission paid to overseas agents by the appellant was liable to service tax under BAS and the appellant is not contesting the same. However, regarding the contention of the appellant that it should not have been imposed penalty under Section 76 ibid, we find that in the case of Jubiliant Enpro (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE , Noida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is located in Rajasthan, which is neither under the jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court nor under the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CST-II Vs. Top Security Ltd. (supra), we would have been inclined to follow the judgement of Gujarat High court in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes (supra) more so because it has already been followed in respect of a similar demand in the appellant's own case and given an option to pay reduced (25%) reduced mandatory penalty. However, we find that Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CST-II Vs. Top Security Ltd. (supra) took note of the Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes (supra) and diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and are convinced that the judgement of which review has been sought does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The Review Petition is accordingly, dismissed." The Supreme Court in its impugned order had dismissed Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Gujarat High Court reported in 2014(305) E.L.T. 442 (Guj) wherein it was held that the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be extended by the Tribunal inasmuchas as the assesse had neither paid duty, interest along with penalty prior to raising demand nor within 30 days of finalisation of demand by the adjudicating authority. Even after passing of order by the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
