9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t company, M/s. Shree Prasad Grinding Mills by invoking the larger period of limitation against them and penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh has been imposed under Rule 173Q. The other appellants are aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalties of Rs. 1.00 lakh each, and of Rs. 10,000.00 on Md. Akram Kidwai under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Shri Amalendu Chakraborty, learned Consultant appearing for the main appellants submits that the first appellant is engaged in the cutting/crushing of unmanufactured tobacco. They are receiving the leaves from their customers, which are first manually chopped on the chopper to make pieces after which the leave portion and stalk portion are separately put into the power-aid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chakraborty submits that both the decisions i.e. in the case of Shree Chand Agarwal as also Sree Biswa Vijaya Industries, have been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court as reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. A137. As the issue is decided in favour of the appellants, he prays for setting aside the impugned Order and allowing the appeal. 4. Appearing for the other appellants, Shri Chakraborty along with Shri P.K. Das, learned Advocate, submit that the imposition of personal penalties upon them under the provisions of Rule 209A are neither justified nor warranted inasmuch as no duty liability can be confirmed against the main appellant in view of the relied upon decisions mentioned supra. 5. Countering the arguments, Shri B. Samaddar, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. After hearing the submissions from both sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra. The various decisions cited by the learned Advocate have earlier been followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S. Akbar Khan Co. v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar by Order No. A-813/CAL/97, dated 15-7-1997. We also note that all the pleas now raised by the learned Advocate for the Revenue were raised in the earlier cases and were taken note of, but not found favour with. We also note that the said decisions of the Tribunal have been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court while dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against the same. The distinction which the Commissioner has tried to draw between the decision of Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
