9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 173Q?" which admittedly does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal in case of the respondent-assessee. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant has re-framed the question in line with re-framed question in Tax Appeal No. 1040 of 2007 which was a case of another employee of the Company and arising out of the common order of the Tribunal. The said re-framed question reads as under: "Whether in view of the admissions contained in the statement of the Respondent recorded under Section 14 of the Act, which is admissible in evidence, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 though the Respondent had knowingly concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-12-1998, statement of respondent-assessee was recorded on 17-12-1998 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After issuing a consolidated notice, the adjudicating authority made an Order-in-Original on 31st March, 2004, whereunder an order of confiscation came to be made against the Company under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) and also granted an option to redeem the confiscated goods by paying redemption fine of Rs. 1,73,425/-; demand of duty of Rs. 4,63,095/- was also raised under Rule 9(2) of the Rules; there were further amounts demanded and penalty of Rs. 7,71,153/- was imposed upon the Company under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. Confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery etc. was also ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invited attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that, in case of the Company, Tax Appeal No. 1041 of 2007 has been admitted on the following questions : "[a] Whether the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in reducing the redemption fine after having upheld the confiscation? [b] Whether on confiscation having been upheld on the ground of violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is the Tribunal justified in setting aside the penalty under Rule 173Q?" On the basis of question No. 2 in case of the Company, it was urged that the penalty deleted in hands of the Company on a technical plea has not been accepted and the appeal is pending. That, onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal is a consolidated order in relation to the appeals of the Company and the employees, wherein it has been held: Insofar as the demand of Rs. 4,63,095/- is concerned, that the said demand under Rule 9(2) is not sustainable because the goods were found lying in the factory premises and excise duty is payable on manufactured goods only when they are removed from the factory premises; The redemption fine has been reduced to a sum of Rs. 75,000/-; In relation to confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery, the same has been set aside, by holding that. As regards confiscation of the land, building, plant and machinery, etc., it is seen that the provisions of Rule 173Q(2)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would apply generally to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
