TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eel Industries, Tiruvallur, was found to have cleared excisable goods evading payment of duty due of Rs. 66,506/- during July, 2002. Vide Order-in-Original dated 30-12-2005, the original authority demanded the duty due of Rs. 66,506/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC, imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 25 of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order and to restore the order of the original authority. However, the detailed grounds furnished in the appeal only canvas imposition of equal penalty on the respondent firm under Section 11AC. 2. Presenting the case of the Revenue, the learned SDR submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court h decided in its judgment in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) in support of the plea that having paid most of the duty due on their own ascertainment before issue of the Show Cause Notice, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of paying 25% duty due as penalty in terms of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. 4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides. Though the prayer of the Revenue in the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have paid the penalty imposed, within 30 days of the adjudication. Had it been offered the option contained in the proviso to Section 11AC. In that case, the appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as deposit for hearing their appeal by the Tribunal; that amount was almost 25% of the duty demanded. I find that the proviso to Section 11AC which contains a provision restricting the p....