TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication order - Admittedly, in the present case, the time limit of 30 days has not been followed by the appellant/assessee. There is no provision to extend such time limit - benefit of reduced penalty not allowed. Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: - when penalty has already been imposed under Section 78, we hold that prior to amendment in Section 78 w.e.f. 10.05.2008, there is no bar in imposing pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. Since adequate opportunities have already been provided, with due notice on various occasions, these appeals are taken up for disposal, taking assistance from the ld. AR and on perusal of the appeal records. 2. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of slurry explosives and detonating fuse liable to central excise duty. They were registered with department for the payment of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t available to them. 3. The assessee/appellant is aggrieved by non-availability of facility of reduced penalty under Section 78 by the impugned order. The Revenue is aggrieved for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76. 4. We have heard the ld.AR and perused the appeal records. 5. On the first point, regarding the prayer of the appellant/assessee for reduced penalty, we note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 w.e.f. 10.05.2008, there is no bar in imposing penalty under both the sections. This has been clarified by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd . judgement dated 3.8.2011 in CEAC 6/2009 and also by Karala High Court in the case of Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Krishna Poduval - (2005) 199 CTR Ker 581, 2005 (4) KLT 947. Following the above said ratio, we hold that prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|