TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has comitted a substantial error of law in reducing the mandatory penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 to the extent of 25% despite having confirmed the duty on account of clandestine removal and evasion of Central Excise duty ?" 3. Heard Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the order passed by the authorities below. 4. At the time of hearing of this Tax Appeal Mr. Oza reframed the substantial questions of law which are as under :- "(a) Whether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances 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 31-3-2000 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 21-9-2004. The adjudicating authority has passed order dated 28-2-2005 demanding duty of Rs. 2,32,620/- and to recover interest at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 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 Court in the case of Machino Montell (I) Ltd. reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P & H) = 2006 (202) E.L.T. 398 (P & H) as well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Dharamendra Textile Processors, reported in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered 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 Appeal No. 1942 of 2008, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21-1-2010 [2010 (254....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibed 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 an statutory obligation of the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself has issued Circular on 22-5-2008 wherein it is clarified that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 decisi....