2017 (9) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the Appellants Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The only issue to be decided in these cases against the main appellant that whether the option of reduced penalty of 25% as provided under First proviso to Section 11AC can be extended to the appellant when adjudicating authority has not given option in writing in the adjudication. 2.  Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ex. Daman [2009(238)ELT 125(Tri. Ahmd.)] (f) Commr. of C Ex & Cus Surat-l Vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & finishing Works [2013 (298) ELT 376(Guj)] (g) Future Link India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II [2017(48)S.T.R. 353(Del)]  (h) Commissioner of CGST and Central excise, Surat-I Vs. Metro Security Services[2017-TIOL-1312-HC-AHM-ST] (i) Commissioner of Central Excise and C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed. 3. On the other hand, Shri N.N.Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.)appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that issue of option 25% penalty was not raised by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeal), therefore same cannot be raised at this stage. He further submits that appellant have not paid duty, interest and 25% penalty even ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ul consideration of submissions made by both sides, I find that issue lies in a very narrow compass that whether option of reduced penalty of 25% can be extended by the Tribunal. The issue is no longer res-integra as Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.A. Shaikh paper Mill Pvt Ltd(SC) held that option of 25% penalty provided under first proviso to Section 11AC should be given in writing by the ....