2015 (8) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;                                     For the Petitioner : Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate                   For the Respondent : Shri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as only pleaded that : (i) The amount on which demand has been confirmed should be treated as cum-tax amount and accordingly the demand of Rs. 4,06,660/- should be recomputed after giving benefit of cum-tax amount. (ii) As penalty under Section 78 has been imposed the penalty under Section 76 should be set aside. (iii) The option of reduced (25%) penalty under Section 78 was never extende....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the appellant with regard to setting aside the penalty under Section 76 is sustainable.  It is also seen that in the case of Ratnamani Metals Vs. CCE - 2013-TIOL-1724-SC-Ah.-CX-P&H, Gujarat High Court held that if the option of reduced (25% of the demand) mandatory penalty has not been extended expressly at the lower levels, the CESTAT can award such an option. 4. In the light of the....