AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them is the quantum of penalty imposable under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. All the appeals stand remanded by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, with directions to decide the issue afresh in the light of the Hon'ble High Court decision in case of UOI vs. M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (89) RLT 103 (SC-LB) = 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and in terms of proviso to Section 11AC. 2. As the facts in each and every case are different, they are being narrated separately, in short, as under: i) Appeal No.E/68/2004: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act, by following the Larger Bench decision in case of M/s Machine Montell (I) Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.E/35/2006: Duty of Rs. 2,50,481/- was confirmed against the assessee along with penalty of equal amount by original adjudicating authority. The said penalty was reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) by taking note of the fact that the entire duty stand paid before issuance of show cause notice and accordingly reduced the same to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. On an appeal filed by the Revenue, Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. vi) Appeal No.E/158, 159/2006: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals), vide which while confirming the demands of duties against the assessees, the penalties were reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The said appeals filed by the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,38,377/- to Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice, Revenue filed the appeal before Tribunal. The said appeal of the Revenue was rejected by taking note of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE vs. Malbro Appliances 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi) and by observing that as penalty amount of Rs. 50,000/- was more than 25% of the duty amount, there is no reason to enhance the same. x) Appeal No.E/369, 2963/2006: Duty of Rs. 5,19,848/- was confirmed against the assessee by original adjudicating authority along with penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs under Section 11 AC. The said order was challenged by assessee before Commissioner (Appeals), w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le High Court of Delhi in case of CCE vs. Malbro Appliances 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi), reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty determined. xiii) Appeal No.E/756/2007: Commissioner (Appeals), while confirming the demand of duty on the allegations of clandestine removal, set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee. On an appeal filed by the Revenue, penalty was enhanced to 25% of duty amount, in the light of the law declared by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE vs. Malbro Appliances 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi). xiv) Appeal No.E/1374/2006: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11 AC and under Section 114 A of Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. I find that the law stands declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors laying down that where the provisions of Section 11AC are invoked, authorities have no discretion to impose less penalty. In view of the above, penalty in all the appeals is increased to the 100% of the duties involved in each case. 4. However, at this stage I take note of the first and second Proviso to Section 11AC, which were not the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. In terms of the said Proviso, if duty and interest is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, the amount of penalty liable to be paid shall be 25% of the duty ....