9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for penalty equal to duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) holding that Section 11 AC of the Act came into statute Book w.e.f. 28.2.1996 only while duty in the instant case was sought to be determined under Sub- Section 2 of Section 11A of the Act by issuing Show Cause Notice on 3.12.97 & which became payable with issue of Order-in-Original No.54/CE/99 dated 25.10.99, quite subsequent to receiving of Presidential assent for Finance Bill, 1996 (dated 28.9.96)? ii)Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating demand for penalty equal to duty when the same was also confirmed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (The Rules) and Rule 173Q provides for imposition of penalty three times the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and is liable for penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules." 2. It is not necessary to give detailed factual background of the case since the imposition of the excise demand is not disputed before us. It was held by all the authorities that the manufacturer had clandestinely removed certain goods manufactured by the Company. On receipt of secret information one tempo was intercepted and huge amount of Video and Audio tapes were seized on which duty had not been paid. It was found that the manufacturer had evaded duty. Show cause notice was issued to the manufacturer on 23.7.1993 and the Collector imposed duty of Rs.3,82,13,593.13 on the Company. The goods seized from the tempo were confiscated along with the vehicle. Personal penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was right in holding that since these provisions came into the statute book w.e.f 28.9.1996 only, the authorities could not have relied upon these provisions to impose penalty and interest in respect of the proceedings relating to the period prior to 28.9.1996. However, we find that Rule 173Q of the Rules also provides for imposition of penalty up to three times of the value of the goods. In the present case the penalty imposed is only equivalent to the duty imposed on the goods. Even if Sections 11AB and 11AC were not applicable the authorities had also made reference to Rule 173Q and derived power under this Rule to impose penalty. 5. We are of the considered view that the Tribunal was prima facie wrong in holding that the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reference on the question of imposition of penalty and only an appeal could be filed. We are not in agreement with this view. 8. We, therefore, feel that this is a fit case where the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to refer the following questions of law raised in this application for decision to this Court within 120 days of the receipt of direction:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in vacating the demand for penalty against the assessee-Company by holding that the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not applicable in this case since the penalty equivalent to duty had been imposed? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in vacating the penalty levied on Satinder Kapoor despite holding that Satinder K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
