2017 (9) TMI 1426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. ORDER The above case was taken up for hearing as per the published list.  On behalf of the appellant Ld. Counsel Ms. Sinduja Christian submitted that the appellant is confining the argument only on the ground that the appellant was not given the benefit of reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.  The Ld. Counsel pointed out that ei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee would be able to pay the reduced penalty and take advantage of the first proviso to Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.  2.  Against this, Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order.  He submitted that the proviso to Section 11 AC is very much clear that the appellant can avail the benefit of reduced penalty if the d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mention in the order that such an option is available to the appellant to pay reduced penalty of 25% if the duty demand, interest and reduced penalty is paid within 30 days of communication of the adjudication order.  Therefore relying upon the above judgments as well as the Board's Circular dated 22.05.2008, we have to see that such benefit has to be extended to the appellant.  The Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X