2011 (4) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Bangalore. The issue that was urged before the Tribunal by the respondent herein was whether in view of the fact that there was a delay of one or two days in making payment of duty with reference to clearance of the goods and in the facts and circumstances, imposition of duty was justifiable. The aforesaid issue was considered by the Tribunal and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent was accepted. In view of the fact that there was delay of only one or two days in making the payment of duty and, therefore, some lenient view could be called for and, therefore, penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh as against Rs. 17,06,632/-. 2. A show cause notice was iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was raised by the respondent, which was with regard to the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rules. No other issue was raised and, therefore, we are not required to go into any other aspect of the matter except for deciding as to whether or not the quantum of penalty imposed by the Tribunal is justified or not in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Lanco Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (13) SCC 448 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In the said judgment, scope and ambit of Section 11-AC was considered....