2016 (1) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 78 to 25% of the tax liability which he could not have done so and also set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 for the period September 2007 to 9th May 2008 relying upon the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned D.R appearing for the Revenue takes me through the case records and submits that the first appellate authority has erred in extending the benefit of payment of penalty of 25% of tax liability confirmed. He would submit that the respondent has not paid the amount of tax, interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the receipt of the order-in-original. His submission is that the issue is now settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE India Raigad v. Castrol Ltd.- 2012....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the issue for consideration is  (1) whether first appellate authority was correct in extending the benefit in reducing the penalty to the extent of 25% of the tax liability confirmed or otherwise,  (2) whether simultaneous penalty can be imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period September 2007 to 09 May 2008 or otherwise. 5.1 As regards the extending benefit of reduced penalty of 25% to the respondent by the first appellate authority, I find that the argument raised by the learned Consultant seems to be incorrect and does not carry their case any further, as the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Castrol India Ltd. (supra) was considering an identical issue, in that case the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passing of the adjudication order. Admittedly, the assessee has not paid 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order of Central Excise Officer determining the duty sought to be evaded under Section 11A(2) of the Act which is the mandatory requirement under Section 11AC. Instead of paying 25% of the penalty within the stipulated time, the assessee has chosen to file an appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and the Tribunal has permitted the assessee to pay 25% penalty beyond the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 11AC which is not permissible in law." 5.2 Identical view has been expressed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sri S....