TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Section 11AC has been held to be applicable in the appellants’ case, calling for imposition of penalty upon them, such penalty has to be to the extent of 100% of the duty amount. As such by following the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills as also in the case of Dharamendra Textiles, we enhance the penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed against the appellants - Decided against assessee. - E/2648 and 2656-2657/1999 - Final Order Nos. A/276-278/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 28-2-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Mathew John, JJ. Shri J. Velapally, Senior Advocate and P. Ranjan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The Misc. Applications stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the dismissal of reference application by Hon ble High Court and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court. The consequence of the same is that demand of duty and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs stands confirmed against the company. 4. While disposing of reference application filed by the Revenue, Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana took note of the Apex Court s decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the penalty amount. For better appreciation the relevant part of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana s decision is reproduced below :- 4. Learned counsel for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed is to the extent of 100% as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textiles reported in 2008-TIOL-192-SC = 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He accordingly submits that this being a case of non-imposition of penalty, though the Tribunal in its first order had imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, the enhancement of penalty to the extent of 100% duty confirmed against them is not justified. 6. Countering the argument, ld. DR submits that the law on the issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Apex Court s decision referred (supra). The Tribunal having held the appellant liable to penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, the only question which survives is as to whether 100% penalty is required to be imposed or the Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
