2017 (7) TMI 1256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the duty demanded. In other words the penalties awarded to the petitioners by the Commission required to be re-worked in terms of the above provision by ensuring that it does not cross 15% in the aggregate of the total duty demanded - While setting aside the penalties awarded by the Commission by the impugned order, the Court directs that application of the petitioners will once again be lis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d order, the Commission imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,00,000 on Petitioner No. 1, ₹ 10,00,000 each on Petitioner Nos. 2 3 and ₹ 1,00,000 on Petitioner No. 4 towards the show cause notice (SCN) dated 20th August, 2015. 3. The petitioners point out that the penalty could not have been more than 15% of the duty so determined in terms of Section 11AC(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arified that the benefit of the amended provision would be available even where a SCN was issued prior to 14th May, 2015 but no order determining duty was passed pursuant thereto. He points out that in the present case, after the SCNs were issued, the petitioners straightaway approached the Commission and there was no adjudication of the said SCNs. 6. In the considered view of the Court, Explan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X