9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be filed. It is also noted that the Range Superintendent directed the appellants to deposit the penalty otherwise it would attract recovery proceedings by the department - appeal is not maintainable against mere communication for payment of penalty. However, the Range Superintendent should have quantified the demand as per Order of the Tribunal before initiation of recovery proceeding. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable - Decided against the assessee. - E/40465/2014, E/40466/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.40318-40319/2014 - Dated:- 9-4-2014 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das, J. For the Appellant : Shri S. Dayaleeswaran, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.P. Muralidharan, Supdt (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Pradip K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the penalty of ₹ 1,22,300/- and ₹ 20000/- as per Order-in-Original dt. 25.2.2005 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise as upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 5.9.2008. It is also stated that non-payment of the penalty would attract recovery proceedings by the department. 6. The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the communication dt. 4.10.2013. By letter dt. 11.12.2013, the Superintendent (Appeals), Coimbatore returned the appeal to the appellant for the reason that the matter was decided by the Tribunal by Final order dt. 5.9.2008. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below :- The perusal of records reveals that the matter was decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore no penalty is imposable. He submits that the communication dt.4.10.2013 of the Range Superintendent directing the appellant to pay penalty amount is contrary to law and appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that the Tribunal by Final order dt. 5.9.2008 set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied the input duty credit and the lower authority had not determined the duty demand and therefore penalty is not sustainable. It is also contended that the Range Superintendent without determining the duty liability directed them to pay penalty against which appellant is aggrieved and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) should have given proper hearing before the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent directed the appellants to deposit the penalty otherwise it would attract recovery proceedings by the department. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below :- Sub : CE - Long standing Arrears of Revenue. - M/s.Shah Yarntex P. Ltd.- Reg Please refer to your letter dated 04.09.2013 in reply to our office letter O.C.No.106/2013 and 107/2013 both dated 11.2.2013. Your attention is invited to Final order No.953 and 954/2008 dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Honourable Tribunal, the excerpt of the same is reproduced for your reference. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied input-duty credit to the appellant. The appeals are allowed to this ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
