9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1141 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - the appellant had not participated either by submission of reply or by personal appearance in the second round of proceedings - Held that - The very same grounds that the appellant had preferred before the first appellate authority are the ones preferred in this appeal. All these have been adequately and sufficiently addressed by the first appellate authority and, in the absence of any further submissions made in relation to or in the grounds of appeal, the appeal itself is without merit - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Proceedings before the Tribunal regarding demand confirmation, penalty imposition, and remand to original authority. Analysis: In the second round of proceedings, the Tribunal dealt with the dispute by M/s Surya Auto Components Pvt Ltd. The original authority's order confirming the demand of ?1,38,604/- and ?1,768/- on illicit clearances by the appellant, along with the imposition of equal penalty, was upheld in the order-in-appeal dated 25th June 2013. Following the first round of adjudication and appeal disposal, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority. During the second round of proceedings, it was noted that the appellant did not participate by submitting a reply or appearing personally. The first appellate authority had considered three aspects: (i) proceedings under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where duty and interest were paid before the issue of show cause notice, (ii) penalty imposition under section 11AC where duty and interest were deposited before the show cause notice, and (iii) entitlement for a penalty of 25% of the duty amount. In the absence of the appellant's participation and any further submissions, the Tribunal found that the grounds raised in the appeal were adequately addressed by the first appellate authority. As no additional submissions were made, the appeal was deemed without merit. Consequently, the order of the first appellate authority confirming the demand and penalty imposition was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
