TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o avail benefit of reduced penalty at 25% of duty, though CESTAT has not re-determined the quantum of duty ? 2.Heard Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. 3.The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the adjudicating authority had issued show cause notice on 15.05.2004 raising the demand of duty of ₹ 18,05,335/- under Section 11 A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of which the assessee had paid Central Excise duty of ₹ 8,83,295/- and hence the duty payable was worked out to ₹ 9,22,040/- of which ₹ 5,54,231/- was paid by the assessee and balance amount of ₹ 3,68,709/- was paid during Appeal proceeding. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Rohtak V/s. J.R. Fabrics Private Limited, 2009 (238) ELT 209 (P H) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority with a direction to give an option to the respondent assessee to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days of the communication of the order, in which case the penalty shall stand restricted to 25% of the duty amount. 6.It is this order which is under challenge in the present tax appeal. 7.Mr. Ravani has submitted that in the remand matter, the Tribunal has wrongly passed an order by incorrect interpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors (Supra). He has further submitted that the Tribunal can give such option to the assessee only o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority. Mr. Ravani has, therefore, submitted that the intention of legislation is to provide the option of reduced penalty when first time issue is adjudicated by original authority. It has never intended to provide option at first appellate stage or even by the Tribunal. 9.We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ravani and also perused very minutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of fact, all these submissions urged by Mr. Ravani were already considered by this Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case of Messers Exotic Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942 of 2008, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory obligation to set out in its order, the availability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and to give an option to such person liable for penalty under that Section, was considered by us in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. We have observed therein that the adjudicating authority has not calculated the interest neither in the order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is, therefore, too much to expect from the respondent - assessee to pay the interest alongwith the duty amount in absence of such calculation of interest. As far as statutory obligation of the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
