2016 (12) TMI 1577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (A.R) ORDER Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) The fact of the case is that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical product cleared on payment of duty in which the case proceedings were initiated. The appellant has admittedly paid the entire duty amount. In the adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed reduced penalty under Section 11AC i.e. Rs. 92,342/- as against ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner has no basis. It is her submission that the penalty under Section 11AC was not imposable as there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Even the demand was also time barred however the appellant without disputing the duty liability and paid before passing the impugned order. Therefore the penalty should not have been imposed. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty under Section 11AC of the Act, we find that since the proposal of penalty under Section 11AC and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was not disputed then the penalty under Section 11AC has to be equal to duty confirmed. This issue has been settled in the Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2007 (215) 321 (S.C.). In view of this la....