TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue's grievance is that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should not have reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the levy of equal penalty is the prescription of law. Learned Joint CDR submits that decision taken by the learned First Appellate Authority is not in consonance with the law for the allegation made out in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portunity was granted for leading defence for imposition of penalty @ 25% of the duty amount, the litigant cannot be adversely dealt. So also Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the law in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. holding that when the law prescribes to comply with the dose of penalty @ 25% in the fitness of the circumstances of the case as required by law, there cannot be deviation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng authority has to redetermine the quantum of penalty which has also been wrongly determined by the learned first appellate authority. If there is any excess amount paid towards penalty, that shall be refundable. 6. So far as penalty on Shri Manoj Chand, Partner is concerned, his guilt intention does not come out from SCN. He is not found to be instrumental to defraud revenue. When such circum....