2009 (7) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The matter stands remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for fresh decision on the quantum of penalty, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) accordingly, I have heard learned SDR. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. As per facts on record proceedings were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the provisions of Section 11AC are invoked, authorities have no discretion to impose less penalty. In view of the above, penalty is increased to the amount of duties i.e. Rs. 3,22,907/- 4. However, at this stage, I take note of the first and second Proviso to Section 11AC, which were not the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. In terms of the said Provisos, if duty and inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de his impugned order. However, the appellate authority never gave any option to the assessee to deposit the dues along with 25% of penalty within a period of thirty days from the receipt of his order. Provisos were the subject matter of consideration of their own lordships of Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtan v. JR Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (2....