2009 (6) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R. Sethi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This is the appeal by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. 306-307/SSS/RTK/2007 dated 30-5-07 passed by CCE (Appeals), Gurgaon by which penalty on the respondent imposed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11AC was reduced to 25% of the amount of penalty. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are in brief as under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18 dated 2-2-06. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued for confirming the demand for the above-mentioned duty and imposition of penalty on the Respondent under Section 11AC. The Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 5-10-06 confirmed the duty demand and ordered appropriation of the amount earlier paid by them vide PLA debit entry No. 18 dated 2-2-06 and beside this, imposed penal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aded that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order reducing the penalty is not correct. He emphasized that the benefit of 1st and 2nd proviso to Section 11AC is available only if the amount of duty together with interest and 25% of duty amount as penalty is paid within 30 days of the order of the original, while in this case penalty equal to 25% of the demand confirmed has not been paid within the stipu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on to the Respondent to pay 25% of the duty demand as penalty within period of 30 days of the adjudication order. He pleaded that in view of these circumstances, the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.) and also the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Rohtak v. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd....