TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty and interest had been paid by the appellant. The denovo adjudication order, in spite of the proviso to Section 11AC, did not give an option to the appellant to avail of the benefit of lower penalty by paying 25% of the penalty within period of 30 days of the adjudication order. In view of these facts, in our view, the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008 (1) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) would be applicable and therefore the benefit of lower penalty in terms to proviso to Section 11AC cannot be denied. The penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC is accordingly reduced to 25% - Decided partly in favour of assesee. - Appeal No. 1420 of 2005 - Final Order No. 53599/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s judgment in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai - V reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 799 (Tri. - Mumbai). In denovo proceedings the Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 47/2001 dated 28/09/01 again confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 18,36,344/- alongwith interest on it under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11AC. On appeal being filed against this order, the Tribunal s vide final order No. 296/03-NB (A) dated 17/01/03 again remanded the matter to Commissioner for denovo adjudication with direction to determine the amortized value afresh by accepting the relevant certificates of Cost Accountant to the extent admissible in terms of Boards Circular dated 23/1/96 and to re-quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. 6. The duty demand based on inclusion in the assessable value of the amortized cost of dies and moulds used for manufacture of the plastic molded components is not being disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He is only contesting the penalty on the ground that since the entire duty alongwith interest stood paid before the denovo, the benefit of reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC should not be denied in view of the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra). In this case while the duty demand confirmed against the appellant is ₹ 2,71,144/-, earlier in the first round of litigation, in pursuance of the Tribunal s stay order dated 13/07/2000, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
