Tribunal reduces penalty due to procedural error

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD rejected the Revenue's appeal seeking an increase in penalty to 100% of the duty amount due to a timing issue. The Tribunal found that the penalty reduction to 25% was appropriate as the Additional Commissioner failed to provide the option to deposit the reduced penalty within the required timeframe. The respondent had already paid 25% of the penalty before the Commissioner's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements in penalty imposition cases.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against reduction of penalty to 25% of duty amount but confirming entire duty and interest due to timing of penalty deposit.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, after condoning a one-day filing delay by the Revenue, addressed the appeal concerning a penalty reduction issue. The Revenue contested the penalty reduction to 25% of the duty amount, arguing that the penalty should be 100% if not paid within 30 days of order communication, citing the first proviso. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors case, affirming the penalty imposition rule. However, it noted that the Additional Commissioner failed to offer the option to deposit 25% penalty within 30 days, as required by law. Referring to previous court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that such omissions render the order invalid and must be overturned. It clarified that the Appellate Authority can grant this option, and if the amount is paid within 30 days of the appellate order, the penalty is reduced accordingly. In this case, the respondent had already paid 25% of the penalty before the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no grounds for increasing the penalty to 100% of the duty amount. The appeal was dismissed, and the COD application was disposed of accordingly.

---