2015 (1) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Appeal is Admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law.              "Whether an option of paying 25% of penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was required to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation, when the tribunal dismissed the appeal, such a prayer was made. On the other hand, the assessee contends that such option ought to have been offered. If not offered, even at a later stage, at the appellate proceedings, such an issue can be raised. 3. It is undoubtedly true that the provision of reduced penalty aims at reduction in the litigation and ensures that an assessee who accepts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erein above, this Court has followed a consistent view that the assessee is required to be given the option by the adjudicating authority where he is asked to pay a duty demand with interest and 25% of penalty within 30 days from the date of adjudication of the order and in such case, he would be liable to pay only 25% of the penalty. Whenever such option had not been given, the remand had been ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... determined under Section 11AC(2) was subsequent to the year 2000 and, therefore, the case would be covered by the explanation to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. When no option was given by any of the adjudicating authorities after determination for payment of duty, interest and penalty of 25% of the duty, what all Tribunal had done, pursuant to the direction in remand order, was to ava....