9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ader of the goods manufactured by appellant No.1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise Department investigated into the matter of availment of SSI exemption claimed by the appellant No.1. On the basis of investigation, show cause notices were issued to the appellants, proposing confirmation of duty demand and for imposition of penalties. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 16.12.2008, wherein Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 42,58,131/- was confirmed alongwith interest. Besides, equal amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant No.1. In addition, penalties of Rs. 15,00,000/- each were imposed on the appellant No.2 and the appellant No.3. Feeling aggrieved with the adjudication order dated 17.12.2009, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be available to the appellant and the appellant is required to pay the entire amount of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order. Ld. D.R. has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi-II Vs. Tops Security Ltd. - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 612 (Del.) and also the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Surat Vs. Rajeshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. - 2014 (305) E.L.T. 442 (Guj.). 5. Heard both sides and examined the case records. Section 11AC ibid provides for imposition of equal amount of penalty, in case of short levy or non-levy of duty attributable to the reason of fraud, collusion, or any willful mis-statement or s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2014 in respect of the Civil appeals filed in various cases. The issue involved in the SLPs filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that if the adjudicating authority has not given the option to pay the reduced penalty of 25%, the said benefit can be extended by the Tribunal at appellate stage. Since vide judgment dated 25.11.2014, the SLPs filed against the judgments of different High Courts were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the law is well settled that in absence of the option given by the adjudicating authority to pay reduced amount of penalty of 25%, the same can be extended by the Tribunal at appellate stage. 6. In the circumstances of the present case, since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
