9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals raise a common question they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. Revenue's appeal in respect of Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., appeal No. E/316/2010-Mum is a wrong appeal as in that case the respondent Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. has settled the issue by paying the entire amount of duty liability, interest thereof and 25% of the amount of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, I dismiss the said appeal as infructuous. 4. As regards the appeals filed against other three respondents, it is the submission of the learned Departmental Representative that there was clandestine removal in the case of Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. and the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of co-noticees. Such findings were contested before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority while upholding the reasoning given by the adjudicating authority, also gave an additional reasoning as to why penalty should not be imposed on the other co-noticees for the respondents before him. The findings are in paragraph 8 to 10, which I reproduce below: "8. As regards Noticee No. 02 i.e. Shri Ambadas Santosh Nagargoje, I find that the case law reported in 2007 (220) ELT 167 in the case of M/s. Pasupati Prints Pvt Ltd, V/s. CCE is squarely applicable, wherein separate penalty imposed upon the Director of the Company was set aside. In the said case there were similar allegations of clandestine removal against Noticee N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht on record. Mere admittance by Ahemdnagar Alloys P. Ltd. Ahmednagar that they have removed the goods clandestinely and further their payments of duty, penalty & interest does not prove that the goods were received by Shree Salasar Ispat P. Ltd. Therefore, there is no evidence to impose any penalty under Rule 26 ibid on noticee no. 04." 7. It is also seen that similar issue came up before the bench in the case of Abir Steel Rolling Mills (supra) , wherein the Tribunal, after considering the law and the provisions thereof, held as under: "6. The first provisos to Sub-Section (2) use the words "proceedings in respect of such person and other persons to whom notice are served under Sub-Section (1)". The word "such person" is obviously the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be recovered. With due respect, in my view, this view of the Tribunal in the case of Anand Agrawal (Supra) can not be treated as correct, as in term of Section 13 of General Clauses Act, 1897, in Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the words in singular shall include the plural and vice-versa and, therefore, the words "such person" in first proviso of Sub-Section (2) would include more than one person also if Show Cause Notice under Sub-Section (1) has been issued for recovery of duty to more than one person. Therefore the words "other persons" in first proviso to Sub-Section (2) have to be given a meaning different from the words "such persons". Revenue's contention would hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings against the manufacturer/assessee stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty plus interest plus 25% of the duty as penalty, there would be no sense in continuing the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 against other persons like traders who had purchased the goods, transporters who had transported the goods cleared by manufacturer/assessee, the Directors/employees of the manufacturer/assessee company. 6.2 For the purpose of settlement of a case, Section 31(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, defines "assessee" as any person who is liable for payment of excise duty assessed under this Act or any other Act and includes any producer or manufacturer of excisable goods or a registered person under the Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments of the Tribunal. 6.3 The intention of Sub-Section (1A) read with Sub-Section (2) of Section 11A, as is evident from Board's Circular No. 831/08/06-EX dt. 26.07.06, is to give opportunity to manufacturer/assessee to settle his tax dispute immediately after the receipt of issue of Show Cause and thereby avoiding the litigation. The interpretation of these provisions sought by the Revenue would be contrary to this objective." 8. Same view has been expressed by the bench in the case of Jay Prakash Agarwal (supra). 9. In view of the foregoing and in the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference, in the cases of individual respondents. 10. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
