9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against order-in-appeal CD/146/M-III/2014 dated 12th December 2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai - III, which has reduced the penalty under rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 to 25% as prescribed in the said rule. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,36,345/- equal to CENVAT credit that had allegedly been availed without entitlement. Respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty that was evaded. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)] and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC). 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. R A Sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid shall be 25% of the duty so determined. The contention of Learned Authorised Representative is that the privilege of reduced penalty is suo motu available to any assessee, and, not having availed that option initially, the entitlement had lapsed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal authority. There has been a glaring lapse on the part of the original authority in not recording the option of reduced penalty in the adjudication order. There is no doubt that the first appellate authority has reduced the penalty without examining the scope of the penal provision in section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. For the purpose, that this aspect may be gone into, the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
