9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul, Rajiv Shakdher, JJ Mukesh Anand and Shailesh Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellant JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J 1. At the outset we may note that the respondent in this case has been served through publication, as reflected in the order dated 01.04.2011. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on 18.07.2011. Since the Division Bench did not assemble on the said date, the matter was posted for today, i.e., 01.09.2011. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent even today, despite the matter being passed over once. In these circumstances, the respondent is proceeded ex-parte. 2. Mr Anand, learned counsel for the revenue, submits that the appeal can be heard on the basis of the material available on record. He further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent. 4.1. After receipt of the reply, the matter was taken up for adjudication by the Additional Commissioner Central Excise (in short 'Addl. Commissioner.). By an order dated 11.01.2001 the Addl. Commissioner confirmed the demand and proceeded to impose, inter alia, penalty on the respondent in the sum of 6,13,028/- in addition to penalty imposed on the directors personally. 4.2. Being aggrieved the respondent as well as the directors preferred the appeals with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (in short the 'Commissioner.). By an order dated 11.11.2003 the Commissioner upheld the order-in-original, i.e., the adjudication order. However, the penalty imposed on the respondent wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (i.e., Sony India Ltd.) has also been considered, and has found resonance in the Division Bench.s judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godavari Manar Sahakari (supra). In that case the Bombay High Court specifically considered a contrary view taken by the Division Bench in so far as the quantification was concerned in the case of UOI vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. 2006 (206) E.L.T. 85 (Bom). The relevant observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Judgment in the case of Godavari Manar Sahakari (supra) are extracted hereinbelow: "9. The reasons for such a stiff and stringent provision, are not far to guess. As can be seen from the scheme of Sections 11A, 11AA, 11AB and 11AC of the Act. It is evident that Section 11A prescribes proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
