TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any its discretionary power to modify and reduce the quantum of penalty in comparison to the quantum of duty liability fixed by the lower authority. The records apparently disclose that the proceedings were initiated in terms of the provisions of law comprises under Rule 96 ZP of the said rules. Apart from the fact that the said rules nowhere provide any discretion to the authorities in the matter of quantum of penalty and the same clearly prescribe that the penalty should be equivalent to the amount of duty payable by the party in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) on assumption that there was no intention to evade payment of duty could not have reduced the quantum of penalty Decided in favor of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mens rea, invoking provisions of penalty is justified? 3C.Whether any proceedings could have been initiated after omission of Rules, 96ZQ, 96ZP(3) and 96ZO w.e.f. 1st March, 2001, omitted by notification no:6 of 2001 and C.E. (N.P.) dated 11.05.2001 of the Central Excise Rules and whether any proceedings can be concluded after repeal of such abolish rules specially when there is no saving cluase to such repealed rules? 3D.Whether authorities were justified in passing penalty order after 01.03.2001 referring to rules which were repealed w.e.f. 01.03.2001 without having any saving clause is bad in the eyes of law? 3E.Whether order of CESTAT, confirming imposition of penalty without taking into consideration the fact that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposition of penalty being settled by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile processors reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (S.C.), the Department is apparently justified in contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have any its discretionary power to modify and reduce the quantum of penalty in comparison to the quantum of duty liability fixed by the lower authority. The records apparently disclose that the proceedings were initiated in terms of the provisions of law comprises under Rule 96 ZP of the said rules. Apart from the fact that the said rules nowhere provide any discretion to the authorities in the matter of quantum of penalty and the same clearly prescribe that the penalty should be equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
