TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') was correct in reducing the penalty amount which was imposed as an equivalent amount of duty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act? 2) Whether, without reducing the duty amount and without legal sanctity of any rule or section, CESTAT is empowered to reduce the penalty amount imposed by the adjudicating authority? And 3) Whether the action of the Tribunal by reducing the penalty equivalent to the duty amount demanded is correct, having found that the 2nd respondent had evaded duty by suppressing facts by issuing parallel invoice with mala fide intention, which was proved beyond doubt by the Department? 2. The facts of the case would reveal that the 2nd respondent had cleared ya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt by filing the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. However, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 6. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder :- 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the appellants had raised a new ground before the first appellate authority that their request for cross examination had not been allowed by the Joint Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that no such request had been made before the Joint Commissioner also. No valid ground has been taken in the appeal against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 27. Above being the position, the plea that the Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff's case (supra) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI's case (Supra) has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered...." 9. The above-said decision was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in JT 2009 (7) SC 314 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows: "23. The decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore ....