Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 720 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/s 11AC - interest under 11AB - personal penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - job-work - loan licence agreement - appellant's case is that the adjudicating authority in the adjudication order did not give an option for payment of reduced penalty of 25%, even if there is a circular dated 22-5-2000 issued by the Board to the field formation that option of 25% reduced penalty provided under second provision to Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the order in original itself by the adjudicating authority - Held that: - any of the cases wherein penalty u/s 11AC of the Act is imposed the provisions contained in 1 and 2 proviso to Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the Order-in-Original itself by the adjudicating authority - as per the aforesaid board circular, the adjudicating authority must have mentioned in the Order-in-Original regarding the option of reduced penalty provided under Section 11AC - the appellant deserve an opportunity for availing option of the reduced penalty. As regard the penalties, the Managing Director was not looking after day to day maintenance of the excise records. Moreover he has not disputed the liability and admittedly paid substantial amount of duty - Regarding the penalty on the employee Shri. Dilip Oak, I found that he is a small time employee of the appellant company and is also not in the job, there is also no evidence that he is beneficiary of any non payment of duty by the appellant - personal penalty on the both above appellants are not sustainable, more so when penalty was imposed on the appellant company. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|