9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 presently Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 despite the respondent having admitted to have knowingly concerned himself in the illicit and clandestine production, non accountal and removal of excisable goods and evasion of Central Excise duty and having admitted to the commission of the contravention and offences under the Act and the Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, the tribunal is justified in setting aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 presently Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 despite the respondent having admitted to have knowingly concerned himself in the illicit and clandestine production, non accountal and removal of excisable goods and evasion of Central Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to and relied upon by the CESTAT. 3. Mr. Oza has further further submitted that the appeal filed by the Excise department against the company being Tax Appeal No. 1584 of 2008 has been 'admitted' by this Court on 13-9-2009. He has further submitted that even the appeal filed by the Excise Department against the Managing Director, being Tax Appeal No. 1587 of 2008 has also been ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this is not a fit case where the substantial question of law should be formulated by this Court. The case of the present respondent is clearly distinguishable than that of Mr. Prem Prakash Tyagi who is the Managing Director of the Company. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not think it just and proper to admit this appeal and formulate the substantial question of law as proposed by the Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
