TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for modification/rectification of Final Order No. 15-2-2007. The contention of the applicant is that in the Final Order, the Tribunal upheld the penalty equal to the amount of demand imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act was upheld. The contention is that penalty under Section 11AC is not impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual to the amount of duty. In the present case, as the goods were cleared without payment of duty and goods were found outside the factory, therefore, in this situation, as the clearance of goods without payment of duty are contravention of the provisions of Act or rules, therefore, the applicants are liable to penalty under Section 11AC. 4. In respect of quantum of penalty, the applicant relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount of penalty so determined have also been paid within 30 days from the communication. In the present case, the amount of penalty has not been paid so far. The proviso that the benefit of reduced penalty is only available if the 25% of the penalty amount is payable within 30 days from the determination of duty was not before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Malbro Appliances (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
