TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issue involved in all of them is the quantum of penalty imposable under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. All the appeals stand remanded by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, with directions to decide the issue afresh in the light of the Hon'ble High Court (sic) decision in case of UOI v. M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2008 (89) RLT 103 (S.C.-LB) and in terms of proviso to Section 11AC. 2. As the facts in each and every case are different, they are being narrated separately, in short, as under: (i) Appeal No. E/68/2004 : Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act, by following the Larger Bench d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of interest and penalty of equal amount. The said order was challenged before Tribunal, who upheld the duty confirmation, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 79,278/- to Rs. 50,000/-. (v) Appeal No. E/35/2006 : Duty of Rs. 2,50,481/- was confirmed against the assessee along with penalty of equal amount by original adjudicating authority. The said penalty was reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) by taking note of the fact that the entire duty stand paid before issuance of show cause notice and accordingly reduced the same to Rs. l.5 lakhs. On an appeal filed by the Revenue, Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. (vi) Appeal Nos. E/158, 159/2006 : T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue was rejected. Both the appeals new stand remanded to Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment. (ix) Appeal No. E/253/2006 : The duty confirmation is not in dispute in the present appeal. As Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,38,377/- to Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice, Revenue filed the appeal before Tribunal. The said appeal of the Revenue was rejected by taking note of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.) = 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi) and by observing that as penalty amount of Rs. 50,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty determined. (xii) Appeal No. E/369/2007 : Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the duty of Rs. 5,03,353/-, reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh by taking note of the fact that the entire duty stand paid by the assessee. Revenue challenged the said order before Tribunal for enhancement of penalty to the extent of 100% of duty amount. Tribunal, by taking note of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.) = 2007 (79) R.L.T. 109 (Delhi), reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty determined. (xiii) Appeal No. E/756/2007 : Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingly rejected. (xvi) Appeal No. E/2313/2007 : Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the duty demand against the assessee, set aside the penalty imposed upon them on the ground that the entire duty stand deposited by them before issuance of show cause notice. On an appeal filed by the Revenue for enhancement of penalty, the same was rejected. (xvii) Appeal Nos. E/265-266/2008 : Duty confirmation against the assessee were upheld by Tribunal, but penalties were reduced to 25% of the duty amount in terms of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.) = 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi) and in case of M/s. K.P. Pouches (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. 209 (P & H). After taking note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors, it was observed that when the Adjudicating Authority as also Commissioner (Appeals) acted illegally and contrary to the first Proviso to Section 11AC of the Act, and no option to pay the dues and penalty of 25% within 30 days was given to the assessee the fault lies with the authorities and not with the assessee. As such the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Malbro Appliances Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Tri.-Del.) and K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd. judgment, reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 Delhi was concurred with. 6. In terms of above judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the or....