TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of K.A. Forward Shoes Factory v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (8) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that if 25% of the penalty amount is not deposited within 30(thirty) days of the order, then it means that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty under second proviso to sub-section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They were issued with a show cause notice demanding Service Tax amounting to ₹ 4,97,244/- for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The amount was confirmed and appellant was directed to pay interest. Further original authority imposed equal penalty under said section 78. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner(Appeals). It was decided through impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under second proviso to sub-section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions of section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and those of section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 are peri materia. We therefore following the ruling of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the above-stated case dismiss the appeal filed by Appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
