TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to deposit amount of interest and penalty within 30 days of its order to avail benefit of reduced penalty at 25% of duty, though CESTAT has not re-determined the quantum of duty? 2. Heard Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the adjudicating authority had passed an order-in-original on 30-6-2003 raising the demand of duty of Rs. 2,19,817/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and charging interest at the prescribed rates under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an option to the respondent assessee to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days of the communication of the order, in which case the penalty shall stand restricted to 25% of the duty amount. 6. It is this order which is under challenge in the present tax appeal. 7. Mr. Ravani has submitted that in the remand matter, the Tribunal has wrongly passed an order by incorrect interpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra). He has further submitted that the Tribunal can give such option to the assessee only on those cases, where the duty demanded to be payable has reduced or increased by it, which is clearly stipulated in the Central Excise Act. Third and fourth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicated by original authority. It has never intended to provide option at first appellate stage or even by the Tribunal. 9. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ravani and also perused very minutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of fact, all these submissions urged by Mr. Ravani were 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) E.L.T. 277 (Guj.)]. This Court after consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obligation to set out in its order, the availability 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, was considered by us in Tax Appeal No. 572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No. 869 of 2007 decided on 18-11-2009. We have observed therein 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 along with 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....