CEXA 35.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.35/2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,Daman Appellant Vs. Inder Jaisinghani & Anr. Respondents Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly for appellant Mr.Madhur R.Baya for respondents CORAM-J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR ,JJ DATE -12TH JANUARY,2011. P.C. . This appeal was admitted on 13th August,2008 on the following questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Sec.11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 , and under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 (now Rule 26 of Central CEXA 35.08 2 Excise Rule ) 2002 ? 2. Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the penalties imposed under Sec.11 AC even though the demand of duty and interest was confirmed by it ? 2. Perusal of the order of the CESTAT clearly shows that the Tribunal has deleted penalty basically on the ground that the show cause notice was issued ten months after the payment of the duty. In (Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills ) 2009 (238) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) it is held that issuing the show cause notice subsequent to the payment of the duty cannot be a ground for deleting the penalty. 3. In these circumstances we quash and set aside the order of CESTAT dated 21/2/2005 (Exh.E) and restore the matter to the file of CESTAT for deciding the appeal afresh and in accordance with law laid down in the above judgment of the Apex Court. CEXA 35.08 3 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)