9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to dispose of the appeals itself with the consent of both the sides on the following grounds. 2. The Commissioner vide his impugned order has confirmed the demands jointly and severely against M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. Chinar Cigarettes Ltd. Further, he has imposed penalty on both the units jointly and severely, apart from imposing individual penalties. 3. The impugned order primarily stand assailed by the appellant on the said ground. By drawing our attention to the various earlier orders of the Tribunal laying down that duties cannot be confirmed jointly and severally, it stand pleaded that even in the case of present appellant i.e. M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd., joint confirmation of duty and joint imposition of penalty with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the statements. 6. We find that same grievance were aired by the appellant in the earlier order of the GTC which stand remanded to the Commissioner with directions. Such observation and directions made in the earlier orders of the Tribunal would be followed by the adjudicating authority in the present proceedings also. Needless to say principles of natural justice would be duly complied with by the Commissioner. With these observations, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner. 7. Inasmuch as the matter is quite old, we expect the Commissioner to complete the re-adjudication within a period of 6 months. 8. All the stay petitions and appeals gets disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second round of adjudication in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated 08/5/12 reported in 2012 (282) E.L.T. 385 (Tri. - Del.) remanding the matter to the Commissioner with certain directions. The duty demand of Rs. 30,85,63,593/- in this case for the period from 31st December 1991 to 31st March 1999 had been raised vide show cause notice dated 19/12/95 and the case against the appellant was based on a number of documents seized from various premises and also on statements of various persons. Since the demand of duty pertain to pre-September 1996 period, the assessee are immune from the interest liability under Section 11AB and their interest liability under Section 11AA, as the same stood during that period, would start only on expir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
