9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Rules, 1944 and also whether penalty can be imposable under Rule 209(A) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. - . Since the entire order of the Tribunal has been set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the issue de novo, the present appeal by the assessee on a limited issue does not survive. Therefore, the plea now made by the appellant can be agitated by the appellant before the Tribunal and the Tribunal inter alia is directed to go into the issue raised by the present appellant on the plea of confiscation of goods as well - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Universal Radiators Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 100 - Supreme Court of India] - Matter remanded back. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing activity had not been intimated to the Department. They also found that the branded radiators of M/s.Universal Radiators Limited were found in packed condition. On enquiry, the representatives of the assessee informed that in respect of the branded radiators of M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd., no accounts have been maintained in the company. A show cause notice dated 20.2.1997 was issued to the assessee as well as to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. demanding duty, interest and penalty invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the assessee contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 51, 52A, 53, 54, 173F, 173G, 174 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. In response to the show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter again before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal, by order dated 29.8.2007, following the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1992 (61) ELT 352 (SC) (Thermax Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs) allowed the appeal holding that denial of exemption on the ground of non-compliance of procedural condition is not sustained. Hence, the Tribunal granted the benefit of Notification dated 10.6.1987. However, the Tribunal sustained the order of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty imposed. 10. Aggrieved by this Order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 11. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we find that a similar approach has been taken by the Tribunal in the present case also and, therefore, the decision rendered by the Tribunal is required to be set aside which we hereby do. We, therefore, while setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration de novo of the dispute in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the records of this case. Needless to state that Tribunal shall consider the appeals pending before it in accordance with law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
