9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended after the issuance of show cause notice, if liability is discharged before the adjudication order. Be that as it may, the issue seems to be covered by the Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sonam Clock Pvt. Limited & Others v. CCE, Rajkot – [2012 (10) TMI 78 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] (wherein I was one of the Member). I do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue that assessee may seek refund of the amount as that the entire order-in-original is set aside as the first appellate authority has considered the extension of benefits of Section 11A to the assessee only on the ground that he has paid the amount in full. If the assessee would not have paid this amount, this benefit would not have been exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch person and other person to whom notice were served under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be conclusive. In the show cause notice the notice under Sub-section (1) demanding duty was issued only to the main assessee and not to the noticees. On the other co-notice the penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 was proposed by way of the same show cause notice. Accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner held that the proceedings against the main assessee against whom the demand of duty was proposed can only be conclusive and not in respect of other co-noticees. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants are before me. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and Shri Mahesh Raichandani, Ld. Counsels appeared for the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravindra C Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I 2015-TIOL-396-CESTAT-MUM (v) Tikam P. Bhojwani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad 2011 (272) E.L.t. 88 (Tri-Ahmd.) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad, Nasik-II Ambika Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. Others Order No. A/3778-3781/15/SMB dt. 23.11.2015 (v) Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur Vs. Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (295) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. Del.) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. Technovinyl Polymers Limited 2013 (298) E.LT. 50 (Tri. Ahmd.) (vii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur (C.G.) Vs. Jay Prakash Agarwal 2013 (297) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. Del.) (viii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh I Vs. Vik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra)held that 7. In the present case, the Revenue's main contention is that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act are not concluded. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that duty along with interest and 25% of penalty has been paid within the stipulated period under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. This finding is not under challenge in the appeal. Therefore, I find no merits in the contention of the Revenue that proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not concluded. Further I find that the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Director of the respondent-company against whom the proceedings were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the issuance of show cause notice. In my view, the benefits which are available to an assessee prior to issuance of show cause notice should also be extended after the issuance of show cause notice, if liability is discharged before the adjudication order. Be that as it may, the issue seems to be covered by the Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sonam Clock Pvt. Limited Others v. CCE, Rajkot 2012 (278) E.L.T. 263 (Tri. Ahmd.) (wherein I was one of the Member). I do not find any merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue that assessee may seek refund of the amount as that the entire order-in-original is set aside as the first appellate authority has considered the extension of benefits of Section 11A to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... das C. Goyal (supra). I observe that in the case of Shri Anand Agarwal Others (supra) all the other judgments as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court P H were not referred / considered. Therefore the judgment of Shri Anand Agarwal Others (supra) is distinguished. As regard, the judgment in Shri Ghanshyamdas C. Goyal (supra), no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of Revenue, the Ld. A.R. relied upon only the judgement of Shri Anand Agarwal Others (supra). The Tribunal following Shri Anand Agarwal Others (supra) case passed the order without having seen all other judgment of Tribunal as cited above and without considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of P H in the case of Vikas Garg. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
