2011 (5) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;                Per :  Rakesh Kumar         In this case, the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 31/3/03 confirmed duty demand of Rs. 59,10,894/- alongwith interest under Sec.11AB  against the respondents and since the respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 38....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s concerned,  the matter  has been decided ex-parte. 3. Heard Shri S.S.Katiyar, SDR for Revenue, who assailed the impugned order with regard to the penalty imposed under Sec.11AC and cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UOI vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills reported in  2009 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supra) and UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra). The only provision under which reduced penalty is permissible is in terms of first and second proviso to Sec.11A under which reduced penalty of 25% of the duty demand confirmed is imposable, if the entire duty demand confirmed  along with interest and reduced penalty is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the....