TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justified and has committed substantial error of law in reducing the mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the extent of 25% of the amount of duty on the ground that the entire duty amount was deposited before issuance of show cause notice without satisfaction of first and second proviso to Section 11AC of the said Act? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed substantial error of law in placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances, reported in 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Del.) = 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.)?" 3. Heard Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted in 2008 (85) RLT 483 (Delhi) = 2008 (228) E.L.T. 31 (Del.)? (e) Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order in accordance with law? (f) Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in reducing penalty to 25% of the duty amount on the respondent ?" 5. Mr. Oza submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any reasons setting out facts of the case of the respondent and has mechanically passed order extending benefit of reduced penalty on the respondent. He has further submitted that the team of Central Excise Officers had carried search of the respondent's premise on 23-8-2003 and detected evasion of Central Excise duty payable by the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because in the said case the assessee had deposited total amount of duty payable under Section 11A(2) of the Act on the date of detection of evasion of duty itself. He has further submitted that the decision in the case of Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.), also cannot be applied because the facts of the case on hand are not identical to the facts of The case of the assessee in the Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., (supra). On the contrary, in view of settled proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P&H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P&H)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) (vi) Steadfast Paper Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 744 (Guj.). 9. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Oza and also perused very minutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of fact, all these questions reframed by Mr. Oza are different facets of the main question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in reducing the penalty to 25% of the duty leviable on the respondent. All these aspects of the main question are already considered by this Court in its order dated 18-11-2009 in the case of Messers Exotic Associates v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal No. 572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No. 869 of 2007 [2010 (252) E.L.T. 49 (Guj.)] and Tax Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority is not under any statutory obligation to set out in its order the availability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and to give an option to such person liable for penalty under that Section. Both these issues were dealt with by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No. 869 of 2007 decided on 18-11-2009 [2010 (252) E.L.T. 49 (Guj.)]. It is also important to note that the adjudicating authority has not calculated the interest neither in the order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is, therefore, too much to expect from the respondent-assessee to pay the interest alongwith the duty amount in absence of such calculation of interest. As far as statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pay penalty under Section 11AC equivalent to the amount of duty. 11. Before parting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities cited by Mr. Oza in support of his submission that a non-speaking order is passed by the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be dismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of the view that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal, referred to and relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Del.) = 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.). The facts are on record. The orders ar....