SAM TURBO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) SHRI M.N. Bharathi, Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that though the authorities below have recorded payment of only Rs. 4,20,000/ - towards duty, the Appellants had paid another Rs. 1,97,612/ - towards duty on 30.01.99 and on 03.09.99, before issue of the Order -in -Original on 01.12.99. He further states that in addition to paying the duty amount, the Appellants have also paid Rs. 2,10,000/ - towards penalty on 11.09.04, 24.10.04 and on 30.01.04. He also states that the Appellants were not given the choice of paying 25% of the penalty amount as provided under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is required to be provided as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI : 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.). The Ld. Advocate also pleads for allowing the benefit of cum -duty assessment, which has not been given by the authorities below.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions from both sides, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for re -determining the duty amount after extending the benefit of cum -duty assessment. He shall also take into account the payments claimed to have been made towards duty and penalty subject to verification and also give them the choice of option for 25% of the penalty amount as per Para -27 of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. UOI (cited supra) and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellants are also to be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order.