9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal is filed by department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who gave the respondent the option to pay reduced penalty. 2. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of confectionary and were availing CENVAT Credit on inputs and capital goods. They are also availing CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued by the registered office of their principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held that the demand for the period beyond five years is time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) also directed to re-quantify the amount for the normal period and accordingly revise the penalty to be imposed. It was also directed that the assessee should be given the benefit to pay 25% of reduced penalty. 4. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR P.S. Reddy reiterated the findings in the Impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as clarified that the benefit of reduced penalty would be available only at the stage of passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority. In the instant case, in para 7.6 of the Impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgments rendered in in K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd., vs Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.)] and Shreeji Aluminum Pvt Ltd., vs CCE, Vapi [2012 (282) ELT 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-determination of duty. The mandatory penalty has also to be revised according to the liability determined for the normal period. In such circumstances, the respondent has to be given an option to pay the reduced penalty in respect of the re-quantified/demand. Therefore I do not find any illegality in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by department is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
