2023 (3) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibuted the Central Excise Duty on the seizure goods amounting to Rs.2,09,704/-. The seized goods were released provisionally on 15/01/2014 on execution of bond along with security deposit of Rs. 67,000/-. Show Cause Notice was issued to the Partnership firm seeking to know as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated and penalties should not be imposed on the firm. The Show Cause Notice was also issued to the partner Moinuddin Ansari seeking to know as to why penalty should not be imposed on him. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority passed the OIO No.04/AC/CE/BKP/KOL-III/2014- 15 dated 16/02/2015, wherein he confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.67,000/-. He also appropriated Rs.67,000/- towards red....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y with interest was paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the OIO. In this case, the Excise Duty was paid in the normal course itself. No amount on account of interest is payable therefore, if the option was given to them to pay the penalty @ of 25%, the penalty would have paid and closed the issue. On this issue, he cites the case law of Commr. of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Kalpesh Founders & Engineers-2009 (248) E. L. T. 354 (Tri.-Ahmd.), wherein, the Tribunal had allowed the Respondent to pay the penalty @ of 25%. This decision was agitated by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue's Appeals were rejected at both these fora. 3. With regard to the personal penalty of Rs.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s & Engineers-2009 (248) E. L. T. 354 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has held as under:- 5. Admittedly, the Original Adjudicating Authority had vacated the show cause notice in its totality. The demand of duty was increased and penalty was imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order. However, the appellate authority never gave any option to the assessee to deposit the dues along with 25% of penalty within a period of thirty days from the receipt of his order. Provisos were the subject matter of consideration of their own lordships of Punjab and Haryana Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtan v. JR Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209 (P & H) . After taking note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgm....