9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the above dues along with 25% of the penalty, the penalty shall stand reduced to 25%. Penalty u/r 25 - case of appellant is that when penalty stand imposed under Section 11AC, there should be no penalty under Rule 25 - Held that: - the appellants never filed an appeal against above order of the Tribunal, reducing penalty under Rule 25 to 25,000/-. As such, the said part of the order of Tribunal having not been appealed against by the appellant, they cannot contend for setting aside the penalty under said Rule, in remand proceedings when the said order was only challenged by Revenue for reduction of penalty under Section 11AC. As such, I confirm the penalty of 25,000/- imposed under Rule 25. Penalty u/r 26 on director - Held that: - penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before Tribunal, which was disposed off vide Order No. A/1722-1723/WZB/AHD/2007, dated 10-7-2007. As the appellants did not contest the demand of duty, the same was confirmed accordingly. However, by observing that the entire duty demand was deposited before issuance of show cause notice (in fact, excess amount i.e. Rs. 3 lakhs was deposited by the assessee, the penalty under Section 11AC was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- and penalty under Rule 25 was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Penalty imposed upon the director was set aside. 6. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, who has remanded the matter for a fresh decision as regards imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the entire duty of Rs. 91,680/- along with interest and 25% of penalty amount can be said to have been deposited even prior to the order of Assistant Commissioner, in which case, penalty amount shall stand reduced to 25% of the same. The amount of 25% of duty would be less than Rs. 25,000/- i.e. the penalty amount arrived at by the Tribunal. As the appellant did not challenge the above order of the Tribunal, I am of the view that penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is required to be upheld against them, in case they fulfil the condition of proviso to Section 11AC. As such, I hold that if the appellants have deposited the above dues along with 25% of the penalty, the penalty shall stand reduced to 25%. In case, the dues do not stand deposited, an opti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods in the manner otherwise than as provided under Central Excise law, which they intend or had reason to believe that the same were liable to confiscation under Central Excise Act, 1944 (the language used by Assistant Commissioner is language as appearing under Rule 26) and it does not stand discussed by them as to in which manner and as to how the said director was responsible for clearance of the goods without payment of duty by manufacturing unit and how the provisions of Rule 26 would get invoked against him. From the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that he has not discussed or given any reasons for imposition of separate penalty on the director. 10. The appellants, in their written submissions, have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
