2017 (1) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case dated 7-9-2002 and 13-8-2002 were not settled as the amount involved was less than prescribed amount for the purpose of settlement of the case. The appellant have not disputed the duty amount and discharged the duty and adjudicating authority adjudicated both show cause notices and apart from confirmation of demand of duty, demand of interest, penalty and imposition of redemption fine were also confirmed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed appeal only for waiver of penalty, dropping of interest and redemption fine. 2. Shri. Prashant Patankar, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that issue is only related to penalty, interest and redemption fine. He submits that demand is beyond the five years therefore the same is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....194 (Bom) held that if the adjudicating authority fails to refer in the order its availability, assessee cannot agitate that there is violation of Section 11AC. It was also held that option of 25% penalty cannot be permitted beyond time prescribed under Section 11AC. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Customs, BLR Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor[2015(324) ELT 636(SC) (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. CESTAT Chennai [2015( 321) ELT 86(Mad)] (c) Agro Tech Foods Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015(330) ELT 448(Tri. Mum)] (d) Commissioner of C. ex. JP Vs. Lucky Plast Ltd [2015( 323) ELT 40(Raj)] (e) Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex. Coimbatore Vs. Premier Polytronics P Ltd [2015 (320) ELT 83(Mad)] (f) Commissioner ....