2015 (10) TMI 2448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das; These appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, we find that both the assessees were engaged in the manufacture ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Act, 1944. 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that M/s. Surya Ceramics filed appeal against demand of duty along with interest and penalty. He fairly submits that as per instructions from M/s. Surya Ceramics, they are not contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest. They are contesting only imposition of penalty in both the cases. 4. On th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue. It is well settled by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court that there is no discretion for reduction of mandatory penalty. Hence, it is required to impose penalty of equal amount of duty, under Section 11AC of the Act. 6. As the penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Act, we do not find that there is any requirement of impose....