TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed error of law in reducing mandatory penalty imposed upon the respondent Section-11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 equivalent to the amount of duty on the ground that duty was paid before the issuance of show cause notice ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed error of law in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Malbro Appliances, reported in 2007 (79) RLT 109 for reducing penalty of 25% of the duty amount ? Heard Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the order passed by the authorities below. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Tribunal can be said to be an order in accordance with law ? (e) 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 ? 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 14.9.2002 and detected evasion of Central Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the date of the said search. The show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2005. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Pouches (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del), cannot be applied to the case of the respondent inasmuch as in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd., (Supra) the adjudicating authority has not ordered recovery 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) ELT 503 (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Central Excise Vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi) Stead Fast Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) ELT 744 (Guj.). 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 Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 statutory obligation of the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself has issued Circular on 22.5.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 Department 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). The facts are on record. The orders are before the Tribunal. There is nothing in the order of the Tribunal that any objection is raised by the departmental representative that the said decision of the Delhi High Court ....