TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals), since he has reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty amount under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in case of CCE v. Malbro Appliances - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.) = 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Delhi). 2. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 2007 (213) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal-LB) = 2007-TIOL-1017-CESTAT-DEL-LB - CCE, Delhi v. M/s. Ilpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. (v) 2007 (215) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.) - CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. (vi) 2008 (222) E.L.T. 204 (Bom.) - CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s. Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (vii) 2007 (219) E.L.T. 1003 (Tri.) = 2007 (82) RLT 736 (CESTAT-Del.) - CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at if duty was paid before issue of show cause notice and original adjudicating authority did not specifically explain the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the order, the benefit of payment of 25% penalty at appellate stage is available. In view of the above decision, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the decision of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Accordingly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
