2020 (1) TMI 845

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inalization of demand by the adjudicating authority - learned tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that appellant could not be granted option to pay 25% (reduced) mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
Mrs. Justice Sabina And Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate ORDER Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. At the time of admission of the appeal following substantial questions of law were framed:- "(I) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 05.05.2016 was right in imposing penalty under Section 78 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant with regard to imposition of service tax, interest and penalty on 31.07.2008. Since, the appellant had deposited the entire service tax along with interest for the period in question upto 06.08.2008, hence, penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and has submitted that as per section 78 of the Act, in case, appellant wanted to derive benefit of reduced penalty, then appellant was required to deposit 25% of the imposed penalty on duty prior to the raising of the demand or within 30 days of finalization of demand by the adjudicating authority. Since, in the present case, the appellant had failed to deposit 25% of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erpreted in a true spirit, it does contemplate payment of duty and interest as well as penalty within 30 days from the communication of the order passed by the adjudicating authority along with 25% of the penalty amount to avail the benefit of 25% reduced penalty. It also culls out from proviso (4) to Section 11AC of the Act that wherever duty amount is increased at an appellate stage, for availing the benefit of 25% reduced penalty, the assessee needs to pay differential amount of duty within 30 days crystalisation of such amount." It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in K.A. Forward Shoe Factory Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C.E. 2017(356) E.L.T. (All.), as under:- "26. There is no dispute that the assessee had deposited that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X