2015 (11) TMI 557 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Imposition of penalty - Held that - First appellate authority, in the impugned order was not sitting an appeal on merits of Mohanlal Silk Mills. The impugned order is passed by the first appellate authority on an appeal filed by the revenue in respect of Maharashtra Dying & Printing Works. Impugned order is not holding anything against appellant Mohanlal Silk Mills, quite rightly so, as there was no appeal before him on findings against Mohanlal Silk Mills. When the revenue has not preferred any appeal against the adjudicating authority s order in respect of appellant M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd.; the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal is not maintainable and is dismissed as such as the findings of the first appellate authority are in respect of assessee Maharashtra Dying & Printing Works. As regards another appeal, First appellate authority did not issue any show cause notice to the appellant Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain for imposition of penalty. In the absence of any show cause notice to the appellant, visiting him with penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is incorrect and not in accordance with the law. - appeal filed by Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain, needs to be accepted and the impugned order to that extent needs to be set aside. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/04/TH-I/10 dated 11.01.2010.
2. Maintainability of appeals filed by M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain.
3. Imposition of penalty without proper show cause notice.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to two appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/04/TH-I/10 dated 11.01.2010. Both appeals were directed against the same impugned order and were disposed of by a common order after hearing both sides and perusing the records.

2. Regarding the appeal filed by M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., it was noted that the impugned order was not sitting an appeal on the merits of Mohanlal Silk Mills. The impugned order pertained to an appeal filed by the revenue in respect of Maharashtra Dying & Printing Works. As M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. did not appeal the confirmed demands with interest and penalty, the appeal filed by them before the Tribunal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

3. In the case of the appeal filed by Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain, it was highlighted that the show cause notice did not specifically direct him to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him. The first appellate authority also did not issue any show cause notice to Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain for the imposition of penalty. Consequently, it was concluded that the penalty imposed on him was incorrect and not in accordance with the law. The appeal filed by Shri Arvind Mohanlal Jain was accepted, and the impugned order regarding the penalty was set aside.

4. In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the first appeal being dismissed due to lack of appeal by M/s Mohanlal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the second appeal being accepted based on the improper imposition of penalty without a proper show cause notice.