2010 (6) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Jamman Singh, JDR For the Respondent : Shri M.A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against dropping of the penalty of Rs. 2,08,253/- under Section 11AC by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Cast Iron Casting and Cast Steel Castings. On the basis of intelligence, Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent reduced the duty demand of Rs. 1,79,527/- along with interest but penalty of Rs. 2,08,253/- under Section 11AC was set aside following the decision of Machino Montell (I) Ltd.  2004 (62) RLT 709 wherein it was held that when the duty has been paid before issuance of show-cause notice, no penalties are imposable under Section 11AC. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue came in appeal before m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in this case penalty has been proposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice there was no proposal of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC hence the penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable. To support his contention he relied on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In show-cause notice there is no proposal to penalize the respondent under Section 11AC of the Act and in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal has held that when there is a proposal under Rule 25 of the Rule no penalty can be levied under Section 11AC. As in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra) the p....