1996 (2) TMI 250 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules beyond the scope of show-cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Imposition of penalty under Rule 209 beyond the scope of show-cause notice.

Analysis: The appellants challenged the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 1.0 lac by the Collector, Central Excise, which was based on a remanded case for passing a speaking order. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction by changing the rule for penalty imposition from 173Q to 209 of the Central Excise Rules, which was not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal's decision in the case of L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. was cited to support the argument that widening the scope of adjudication post-remand is impermissible. The learned Counsel contended that penalty imposition should have been limited to Rule 191B, as the contravention was under this rule. Additionally, reference was made to the judgments of Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Hyderabad Industries to emphasize that the adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the scope of the remand order.

Judgment: After considering the evidence and case-law cited, the Tribunal found that the invocation of Rule 209 for penalty imposition was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and the remand order. The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed under Rule 191B(6), which provides for a maximum penalty of Rs. 2,000. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 1.0 lac to Rs. 2,000, upholding the impugned order with this modification. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law.