9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against order-in-appeal No.278/CE/DLH/2016 dated 15/12/1016. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, I find that the short issue that falls for consideration of the tribunal is whether, appellant herein is to be extended the benefit of discharge of 25% of the amount of duty confirmed, as penalty under the provisions of section 11 AC of Central Excise Act 1944 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability as provided under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act 1944, both the lower authority have held against the appellant. 5. On consideration of the lengthy arguments made by both sides and perusal of records, I find that the appellant has a case in their favor on the question of discharging only 25% of the amount of duty confirmed as penalty. 6. It is seen from the records that the Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the appellant was informed about the crystallization of the duty liability of 42,77,334/- (as stated here in above) by a letter dated 02/09/14. If these facts are not denied and remain undisputed, to my mind, appellant needs to be extended the benefit of discharge of penalty of 25% of the amount of duty crystallized against them. In view of the foregoing, I allow the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
