TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the 2nd respondent/assessee in reducing the penalty imposed was unwarranted and uncalled for? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent/assessee is entitled for any special consideration as it is a Government of India enterprise especially when the 2nd respondent/assessee suppressed material facts to the Department and effect statutory compliance? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the 2nd respondent/assessee failed to discharge their statutory obligation in making a proper declaration inasmuch as their exists no mitigating circumstance to exercise discretion in reducing penalty?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The second respondent/assessee are the manufacturers of cotton yarn and man made yarn falling under C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Adjudicating Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority demanding duty, except to reduce the penalty to the extent of Rs. 1.00 lakh. 5. As against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It is relevant to note that as against the order confirming the demand of duty, the assessee did not file any appeal before the Tribunal and hence, the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand of duty had become final. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides dismissed the appeal holding as follows: "2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appearing for the appellant and and perused the materials placed before this Court. Even though notice has been served on the second respondent, none appears for the second respondent. 9. 7. As is evident from the facts of the case, here is a case of adjudication invoking the extended period proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. In such circumstances, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (Union of India V. Dharamendra Textile Processors) makes it very clear that penalty under Section 11AC is imposable. 10. While considering the pari materia provision, namely, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (231....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... what is stated above in regard to the decision in Dharamendra Textile is only in so far as Section 11AC is concerned. We make no observations (as a matter of fact there is no occasion for it!) with regard to the several other statutory provisions that came up for consideration in that decision. 25. In the light of the discussion made above it is evident that in both the appeals, orders were passed by the Tribunal on a wrong premise. In both the appeals, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the matters are remitted to the respective Tribunals for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, and in the light of this judgment...." 12. Following the above-said decisions, this Court by order dated 12.12.2014....