9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1308 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/s 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rules made thereunder - Held that - the appellant needs to be visited with penalty in this case under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the said Act as there is no appeal against the finding on merits in the first round of litigation - Appeal to the extent of the excess penalty imposed, more than the duty confirmed, is set-aside - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved: Penalty imposed under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, delivered by Mr. M. V. Ravindran, addressed the issue of penalty imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was against OIO-30-50/COMMR/2008 dated 17/03/2008. The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation, with the first round resulting in a decision against the appellant, leading to a remittance of the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of demands. The Tribunal also directed the imposition of a penalty based on the re-quantification of the demand. The appellant contested the penalty amount of ?25 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority, stating that the re-quantified duty was ?22,09,779, which was incorrect as per Section 11 AC of the Act. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant should indeed be penalized under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since there was no appeal against the previous finding on merits, and the demand based on re-quantification was not contested, the provisions of Section 11 AC were deemed applicable. The Tribunal held that the penalty should be equivalent to the confirmed duty amount of ?22,09,779 and not more. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to reflect this decision. The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the extent of the excess penalty imposed beyond the confirmed duty amount, disposing of the appeal accordingly. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.
|
