9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pre-deposits, we proceed to decide the appeals itself inasmuch as the identical appeals of the same party stand already decided by us. 2. On going through the operative part of the impugned order, we find that Commissioner has confirmed the duties against M/s Golden Tobacco Ltd. and M/s. M P Tobacco Ltd. 'jointly and severally'. The Tribunal in the same appellants case vide earlier orders have held that such confirmation of demands or imposition of penalties jointly and severally are not in accordance with the law and matters stand remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision, after making his mind as to who is the actual manufacturer of cigarettes in question. Reference can be made to Tribunals Final Order No. A/53088 -5309 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be confirmed against the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer. Similarly, penalty under Rule 173Q (1) would be impassable only on the person who has been held to be the actual manufacturer and who has cleared the cigarettes without payment of duty. Joint penalty under Rule 173Q (1) cannot be imposed both on M/s MP Tobacco Ltd. and GTC Industries Ltd. 6. Before parting with this matter, I would also like to observe that this is the second round of adjudication in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated 21/4/11 reported in 2012 (28) S.E. 327 (Tri. - Del.), wherein detailed directions had been given as to how the matter is to be adjudicated. But still the matter has been adjudicated once again in such a manner, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be confirmed, as the interest liability under Section 11AA of the person held to be liable to pay the duty would start only on expiry of three months from the date of the adjudication order. Here it is also necessary to point out that there was similar delay in adjudication of two more matters - the first matter involving duty demand of Rs. 30,85,63,693/- for pre-September 1996 period and dealt with in the Tribunal's order reported in 2012 (282) E.L.T. 385 (Tri. - Del.) and the second matter against involving duty demand of about Rs. 29.53 crores for pre-September 1996 period dealt with the Tribunal's final order No. 51450-51456/2014 dated 06/03/14. We hope that the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), takes these matters ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
