TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the quantum of penalty, in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) accordingly, I have heard learned SDR. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. As per facts on record proceedings were initiated against the respondent for confirmation of duty on the allegations of clandesti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. In view of the above, penalty is increased to the amount of duties i.e. Rs. 3,22,907/- 4. However, at this stage, I take note of the first and second Proviso to Section 11AC, which were not the subject matter of the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment. In terms of the said Provisos, if duty and interest is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 judgment in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
