9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the case of Vikas Garg-[2011 (1) TMI 129 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has not been considered by this Tribunal. Further in the case of Jay Prakash Agarwal (2013 (7) TMI 827 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) a similar issue came up before this Tribunal after considering the decision in the case of Anand Agarwal have arrived at the decision that if duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty have been deposited by the manufacturer within the stipulated time as prescribed under section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the show cause notice also stands concluded. - impugned order was not required to be passed and in this case the proceedings against the appellants would be concluded - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and consequently allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty on the main appellant and co-appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants are before me. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that as per provisions of section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the proceedings would have been concluded on payment of duty alongwith interest with 25% duty as penalty imposed on the main appellant within 30 days of issue of show cause notice. The adjudicating authority has rightly concluded the proceedings against the main appellant. Therefore, the same were not warranted. He further submits that after passing the adjudication order and before appellate authority order, the impugned goods have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Jay Prakash Agarwal (supra) a similar issue came up before this Tribunal after considering the decision in the case of Anand Agarwal have arrived at the decision that if duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty have been deposited by the manufacturer within the stipulated time as prescribed under section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the show cause notice also stands concluded. 8. In view of above, I hold that the impugned order was not required to be passed and in this case the proceedings against the appellants would be concluded. 9. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Prakash Agarwal (supra), I hold that confiscation of the goods and consequently imposition of redemption fine penalties are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
