2010 (1) TMI 1206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty upto 25% of the duty amount in the case when the penalty so determined was not paid by the party within the period of thirty days which is the pre requirement to avail such benefit as per the second proviso to Section 11 AC?" This is an Appeal by the Revenue filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging Order dated 28.10.2008, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised may first be noticed: The Respondent-Manufacturer i.e. M/s Shipley Hosiery Industries is engaged in the manufacture of Sweaters falling under Chapter Heading....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals), Central Excise, Jalandhar. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order dated 09.11.2006 dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent-Assessee and upheld the Order of Adjudicating Authority. The Respondent-Assessee filed Appeal before the Tribunal assailing the Order of Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 28.10.2008 reduced the amount of penalty from 100% to 25% relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of C C E VS. Malbro Appliances (P) Ltd., 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Delhi). The present Appeal is filed against the said decision of the Tribunal. Mr. HPS Ghuman, Ld. Counsel for the Revenue has vehemently argued that the provision of Section 11AC of the Act has now been interpreted by Hon&#39....