2015 (2) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal are right in reducing the penalty from Rs. 37,818/= to Rs. 5,000/= when the said penalty was imposed in accordance with Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is mandatory by law, when the respondent has committed default in payment of duty?          ii) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal have wrongly exercised a power which is not vested in them under law? 2. The respondent is a manufacturer of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent filed declaration opting for payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme in terms of sub-section (1) of Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Coimbatore  Vs  Kannapiran Steel Re-Rolling Mills (2010 (15) SCC 161), wherein the Supreme Court has considered identical question of reduction of penalty imposed under Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, and held as under :-                5. The counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue has submitted before us that the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors. ....