TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No. RKR(172)33/07 dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the issue of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case is that M/s. Medicore Labs Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under Ch. Sub-heading No.3003.10 3003.20 and Food product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms and Central Excise, Aurangabad vide order-in-original No. 38/CEX/JC/2006 dated 31.10.2006 has - (i) Confirmed the demand and recovery of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 12,81,246/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Imposed penalty under Section 11AC on the Noticee of ₹ 12,81,246/- read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (iii) Confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid for the year 2005. Therefore, duty confirmation upto amount ₹ 1.02 lakh is upheld and the extent of penalty is fixed at ₹ 50,000/- only. 4. Heard ld. SDR and perused the records. 5. The respondent also filed Cross Objection stating that there was no suppression of facts brought on record on the part of respondents hence no penalties leviable under Section 11AC of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of legislative intent. 8. In Union Budget of 1996 97, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was introduced which has made the position clear that there is no scope for any discretion. The provision stating that the levy of penalty is mandatory penalty. 9. I am in agreement with the contention of the ld. SDR wherein it was held in the case of Union of India Ors. Vs. M/s. Dharmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
