9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Br.)] and ₹ 52,186/- [Excise Appeal No. 1502 of 2005-SM (Br.)], which, admittedly, came to be paid up with interest. The appellate Commissioner held that, since the assessee had preferred appeal against the imposition of the minimum amount of ₹ 5,000/ - [Excise Appeal No. 1500 of 2005-SM (Br.)] and ₹ 10,000/- [Excise Appeal No. 1502 of 2005-SM (Br.)], which appeals were dismissed by confirming the imposition of penalties, it was not open for the appellate Commissioner to entertain the appeals of the Revenue on the doctrine of merger of the order of the adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Appeal made on 27.2.2004 [Excise Appeal No. 1500 of 2005-SM (Br.)] and 25.8.2004 [Excise Appeal No. 1502 of 2005-SM (Br.)] in the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The scope of those appeals was limited to examining whether the imposition of even ₹ 5,000/- as penalty was justified or not. No higher penalty could have been imposed in those appeals because, imposition of higher amount of penalty was not in issue and could not have been in issue in an appeal which was filed by the noticees only against the order to the extent that it imposed penalty. However, in the appeal of the Revenue, the question that, higher penalty of the amount equal to the amount of duty outstanding remain live after the confirmation of the penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. 3.2 Ordinarily, on the above facts, the matter would have been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the appeals of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, appeal's that Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (207) ELT 58 (P and H), while considering the same issue has, in terms, held that even by omission of Section 3A of the said Act liability of the assessee thereunder was not wiped out. The Hon'ble High Court noted that, by Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001 Section 38A was added in the said Act that inter alia, provided the saving provisions. The Hon'ble High Court answered the question framed in para 9 (i) to the effect whether omission of compounded levy scheme wipes out the liability of the assessee for the period during which the scheme was in operation, by holding that even by omi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
