9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) E.L.T. 948 (Tri. - Mum.)] (remand order) passed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 2,80,058/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, against the first appellant and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 2,19,942/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand of duty is for the period June, 2000 to March, 2001. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the second appellant (Managing Director of the Company) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. An earlier deposit of Rs. 6 lakh made by the appellants was appropriated towards the adjudged dues. The present appeals are directed against the Commissioner s order. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case was remanded for re-quantification of demand of duty covered by the normal period of limitation. The remand order, in its operative part, does not mention anything about penalty. The remand order was upheld by the Bombay High Court in its judgment dated 16-1-2006 in Central Excise Appeal No. 71 of 2005 [2008 (226) E.L.T. A71 (Bom.)]. The Hon ble High Court s order also does not indicate that any penalty-related issue was agitated before that Court by the Department. It is further noticed that, in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner accepted that the case on hand was not a case of mis-declaration, suppression, etc. Nevertheless, he held the assessee liable for penalty under Rule 173Q for evasion of duty . Where mis-declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants are sustainable or not. The penalties are under Rule 209A which reads : Penalty for certain offences. - Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The sine qua non for a penalty on any person under the above rule is that either he has acquired possession of any excisable goods with the knowledge or belief that the goods are liable to confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
