9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2011 - Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri M.Veeraiyan, JJ. Appearance: Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Departmental Representative (DR) for the respondent Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the DR for the appellant and none present for the respondents though served. 2. Since a common question of law and fact arise in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeal arise from a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur on 6.5.2005. Three appeals came to be filed before Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur being Appeal No.141, 142, 143/2005 against three different orders passed by the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (231) ELT 3 (SC) and C.C. C.E., Coimbatore vs. Kannapiran Steel Re-Rolling Mills reported in 2011 (263) ELT 22 (SC) submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reducing the penalty and ignoring the mandate of the provisions comprised under Rule 96ZO and obligation of the authorities to impose penalty equal to the duty confirmed against the assessee. 6. We have perused the records and the impugned orders placed before us as well as the orders passed by the adjudicating authority with the assistance of the DR in the absence of appearance on behalf of the assessee even though the notices have been duly served. We have also perused the so-called cross-objections which merely relate to attempt to answer the points sought to be rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cing the penalty. Provisions of Rule 96-ZP being identical and pari materia with that of Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO, the ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by Three Judges Bench is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the High Court as also by the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the adjudicating authority, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In view of the said decision of the Apex Court, the impugned order reducing the penalty cannot be sustained is liable to he set aside and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is to be confirmed. 8. Accordingly, the appeals succeed. The so-called cross-objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
