Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in view of the first and second provisos to section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant was entitled to retain only 25% of the penalty and refund of the excess penalty already paid, and whether the subsequent reversal of the refund was sustainable.
Analysis: The duty, interest and the entire penalty had been paid within one month of communication of the adjudication order. On that footing, the provisos to section 11AC limited the appellant's liability to 25% of the penalty. The refund of the excess 75% penalty, once sanctioned and disbursed, could not be later disturbed on the ground taken in the impugned proceedings.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to refund of the excess penalty, and the order treating the refund as inadmissible was unsustainable and set aside.