TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as revenue remanded the matter back to the tribunal to reconsider the issue for imposition of penalties under section 11AC, keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) ELT 3]. On remand from the Hon'ble High Court, this matter was taken up for disposal on 06.11.2009. vide order No. A/2311/2313/WZB/AHD/09, this bench remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the quantum of penalty. Aggrieved by such an order the revenue again preferred an appeal before the High Court in tax appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty imposed by the lower authorities. 5. Ld. counsel S.R. Dixit appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention that the issue before the bench is to be gone into merits as there cannot be any suppression fact and again extended period invoked is incorrect. It is his submission that for an identical amount, Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom, Vadodara issue an show-cause-notice dated 16.02.2009 wherein they directed the appellant herein to show cause as to why demand be not made on them. It is his submission that subsequently again another show-cause-notice was issued on 28.09.1999 to the appellant. After drawing our attention towards the show-cause-notices he would submit that the show-cause-notice dated 16.02.1999 was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1944. 8. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that the appellant has not contested the confirmation of the demand, anyway. On the perusal of the said grounds of appeal, the appellant herein seeks to only set aside penalties imposed by the lower authorities. 9. As regards penalty imposed under section 11AC, we find that the ld. counsel's arguments are basically revolving around issuance of second show-cause-notice by invoking extended period while there was already a show-cause-notice dated 16.02.1999. On perusal of the said show-cause-notice dated 16.02.1999, we find that a said show-cause-notice is issued to one M/s. Western Transformers and not to the appellant whose name is Western Electrical Company, though we find that sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcesses Rules, 1944 is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh. 11. As regards the quantum of penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we find that the period involved in this case is from April - 1994 to May-1998 the lower authorities have imposed penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for the entire period. In our view, the period from April-1994 to 27.09.1996 will not be covered under the provisions of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for imposition of penalties; as the said provisions was brought into statute only on 28.09.1996, to that extent, the claim of for not imposition of equivalent penalty for the demand of the duty from April-1994 to 28.09.1996 is valid and submission need....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court of Gujarat in the case of Akash fashions, respectfully following the same, for the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period 28.09.1996 to March-1998 we extend the benefit of section 11AC, and direct appellant to pay the penalty @ of 25% of the amount of duty for this period. Adjudicating authority will work out the duty liability for the period 28.09.1996 to March 1998 by extending the benefit of payment of 25% of the amount of the duty to the appellant, herein subject to the condition pay to 25% of the amount within 30 days of being informed of the correct duty liability for the period 28.09.1996 to March-1998; by the lower authorities. 13. As regards interest liability on the appella....