TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee/ respondent since morning, though it is 3.30 p.m. Vide order dated 04.01.2006 following question was framed to be answered by us: ?Whether the authority levying penalty in terms of Section 11A.C. has any discretion in the matter of fixing the quantum of penalty and/or reducing the amount of penalty below the amount of duty held payable?? Learned counsel for the appellant/ rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecution under Section 276-C of the I.T. Act. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been held to be inserted by the Finance Act, 1996 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evaded payment of tax should be read to contain mens rea as an essential ingredient and whether there is a scope for levying penalty below the prescribed minimum. It was held that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise on 30.11.1999 imposing the duty of ₹ 6,04,624/- and penalty of ₹ 3 lacs. The assessee aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld this portion of the order vide order dated 28.02.2002. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT which passed an order on 03.12.2003 sustaining the duty but held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
