2016 (10) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(AR) for Appellant None for Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 109/COMMR/03-04 dated 24.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raigad. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 11,02,06,881/- in respect of capital goods imported duty free being a 100% EOU invok....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of Central Excise Vs. Viraj Alloys Ltd. vide Central Excise Appeal No. 64 of 2005, Hon'ble Bombay High Court s order dated 13.10.2010. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned AR and perusal of the records, we find that the demand of duty for an amount of Rs. 11,02,06,881/- was confirmed by the adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. From a plain reading of above Section 114A, penalty under such Section is equal to the duty not paid. No option is available to the authority to reduce the penalty. This issue has been settled in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (23) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it was held that when the mandatory penalty is provided....