9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd., vs Union of India [2008 (1) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Shreeji Aluminum Pvt Ltd., vs CCE, Vapi [2012 (10) TMI 418 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] It is not in dispute that in the present case, the respondent was not given an option to pay reduced penalty of 25% of duty, In K.P. Pouches Adjudicating Authority levied an incorrect penalty without giving an option to pay reduced penalty, the assessee was left with no choice but to challenge the penalty which he would otherwise have to pay, which is statutorily not actually leviable. Since statutory authorities have themselves acted illegally and contrary to first proviso to Section 11AC ibid, the assessee cannot be faulted for challenging the order. Moreover in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department entertained a view that assesee cannot be treated as own unit of M/s Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., for distribution of input service tax credits. The Show Cause Notice was issued demanding wrongly availed credit on the period from 01.08.2005 to June, 2011, amounting to ₹ 14,49,469/along with interest and also proposing penalties. 3. After adjudication, the Original Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal penalty. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned herein 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 norma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the present case, the respondent was not given an option to pay reduced penalty of 25% of duty, In K.P. Pouches Adjudicating Authority levied an incorrect penalty without giving an option to pay reduced penalty, the assessee was left with no choice but to challenge the penalty which he would otherwise have to pay, which is statutorily not actually leviable. Since statutory authorities have themselves acted illegally and contrary to first proviso to Section 11AC ibid, the assessee cannot be faulted for challenging the order. 7. Moreover in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand which is hit by the limitation and has directed the Lower Authority to re-quantify the demand for the normal period. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
