9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an offence, in the case of second offence he cannot be treated so leniently that no penalty was imposed upon him - It was urged that there can be no reference on the question of imposition of penalty and only an appeal could be filed - We are not in agreement with this view - this is a fit case where the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to refer the questions of law raised in the application for decision. - Excise Reference No. 9 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2011 - Deepak Gupta And V. K. Ahuja,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondents.: Mr. Manish Gandhi and Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. ORDER Per Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this Excise Referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construed as clarifying that interest can be levied only on adjudication made after the Presidential assent has been received for Finance Bill and not upon the introduction of the Finance Bill? iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in allowing benefit of wastage of 27% to the party in respect of suppressed production/ clandestine removals covered by Order-in-Original No.54/CE/99 when the allegation of suppressed production was based upon the concrete evidence/document like date-wise dispatch reports, monthly MIS feeder report and the shortage detected and not based upon the total raw material consumed and wastage which originated in the course of manufacture? v) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating the penalty on Sh.Sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. a sum equivalent to the duty assessed was imposed on the manufacturer under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed upon the Managing Director Sh.Satinder Kapoor. 3. This order was challenged by the manufacturer and the Managing Director before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the proceedings related to the period 2.11.1992 to May, 1994. It came to the conclusion that since Sections 11AB and 11AC were introduced in the statute book only on 28.9.1996 no interest or penalty could have been imposed. The personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed upon the Managing Director was set-aside on the ground that in an earlier case for a similar off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. 6. Coming to the second question as to whether the Tribunal was legally right in vacating the penalty imposed upon the Managing Director Sh. Satinder Kapoor. At the outset we may mention that the Tribunal itself has given a finding that the Managing Director Satinder Kapoor was a party to the evasion of duty and as such liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules. However, it went on to hold that since in an earlier case for similar offence a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed it reduced the penalty to Rs.2 lakhs and if he is asked to pay a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of penalty it would be cruel. 7. We are constrained to observe that this goes against the very basic principle of law. When a person is repeatedly guilty of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
