9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays from passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that in absence of seizure of goods redemption fine cannot be imposed on the respondent as held by the Tribunal in case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE and Cus., Nasik reported in 2009 (235) ELT 623 (Tri-LB)? (c) Whether, the impugned of the Tribunal can be said to be an order passed in accordance with law in absence of recording comparative facts of the case and recording finding on the jurisdictional fact before applying ratio of decision of the Tribunal in case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd (Supra)? 2. Assessee-respondent is engaged in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho fairly submitted that though other issues have been raised, he essentially insists on determination of Question No.1 relating to the reduction in the penalty to 25% of the duty amount. 7. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the order of the Tribunal, for better appreciation of the issue: Ld. advocate Shri Willingdon Christian appearing for the appellants submits that he is not contesting the demand of duty of Rs.3,34,923/- confirmed against them in respect of shortfall of imported PFY. The interest on the same is also not being contested. In view of the above, I confirm the demand of duty and interest. The ld.advocate submits that penalty of identical amount stands imposed upon the applicant in terms of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as referred to in the first proviso. 9. The Tribunal in the instant case following its own judgment in case of CCE Vadodara V/s. Swati Chemical Industries, reported in 2009 (248) ELT 421 (Tri.Ahmd) extended option to the assessee to deposit 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of communication of the order as such an option was not extended by any of the lower authorities. This order in the case of Swati Chemicals Industries and Others (Supra), when challenged before this Court, the same has been confirmed. 10. Moreover, this direction is also in consonance with the findings of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Ahmedabad-I v. Akash Fashion Prints Private Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
