Tribunal rules penalty must match duty demand. Reduced penalty available if duty paid promptly.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed lower than the duty demand confirmed was incorrect. The penalty under Sec.11AC equal to the duty demand confirmed was imposed on the respondent. However, if the respondent had paid the entire duty amount with interest within the stipulated period, they would be eligible for the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty demand confirmed. The option to pay the reduced penalty was not provided in the Commissioner's order. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order imposing a lower penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of duty demand and interest under Sec.11AB against the respondents.
2. Imposition of penalty under Sec.11AC and Rule 173Q.
3. Appeal against the Commissioner's order by the Revenue regarding the imposition of a lower penalty.
4. Adjudication of penalty under Sec.11AC in light of previous judgments.
5. Consideration of reduced penalty provisions under the first and second provisos to Sec.11A and Sec.11AC.
6. Decision on the correctness of the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand of Rs. 59,10,894/- along with interest under Sec.11AB against the respondents. The Commissioner directed the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 20,80,897/- as the respondents had already paid Rs. 38,29,997/-. Additionally, penalties under Sec.11AC of Rs. 28,46,896/- and Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q were imposed. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order, arguing that the penalty imposed was lower than the duty demand confirmed.

2. The matter proceeded ex-parte as the respondent did not appear despite notice. The Revenue challenged the penalty imposed under Sec.11AC, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex court held that once the conditions for penalty imposition under Sec.11AC are met, the penalty must be imposed regardless of any prior payments made. The adjudicating authority has no discretion to impose a penalty lower than that specified in Sec.11AC.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records presented. It was noted that the authority does not have discretion to impose a penalty lower than that specified in Sec.11AC based on previous judgments. Reduced penalty is only permissible under the first and second provisos to Sec.11A if the entire duty demand confirmed, interest, and reduced penalty are paid within thirty days of the adjudication order. A case law highlighted that an assessee cannot be deprived of the option to pay the reduced penalty if the entire duty amount is paid but not the reduced penalty.

4. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed lower than the duty demand confirmed was incorrect. The penalty under Sec.11AC equal to the duty demand confirmed was imposed on the respondent. However, if the respondent had paid the entire duty amount with interest within the stipulated period, they would be eligible for the reduced penalty of 25% of the duty demand confirmed. The option to pay the reduced penalty was not provided in the Commissioner's order.

5. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order imposing a lower penalty was set aside. The Tribunal clarified the eligibility for reduced penalty under specific conditions. The decision was dictated and pronounced in court.

---