9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Final Order No.1263 of 2005 and 1264 of 2005 dated 12.09.2005. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.04.2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the Tribunal has acted upon law by passing order of remand to the adjudicating authority when the point of dispute raised before them has already been elaborately reasoned out? (ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is merely accepting the pleas of the 1st respondent without recording any reason and just citing the decision of the Tribunal, when the adjudicating authority has given effect to it with adequate reasons, is acceptable under law? (iii) Whether the penalty amount reduced by the Tribunal withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te book when the alleged failure to pay the Duty at the time of the clearance of the goods manufactured. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside that part of the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. Since the Respondents have not disputed the liability to pay Duty, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to examine the correctness of the adjudication in that regard. But, however, dealing with the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Rule 209A of the Rules, since there was no evidence brought forth to link Shri N.Ramachandran, for the alleged violations, the penalty is set aside by the Tribunal. 7. It will be relevant to notice that Rule 209A of the Rules, has specifically required that any person, who deals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three times of the value of the Excisable goods in respect of the contravention referred to in the said Rule or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is greater. The Rule itself is framed in a language which brings out an element of exercise of discretion on the part of the Adjudicating Authority. 10. In the instant case, the discretion has not been exercised on sound lines and hence the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to that of Rs. 50,000/-, though the Tribunal ought to have given the necessary reasons for it to substitute the quantum of penalty. But however, we cannot ignore the fact that the Order-in- Original does not speak of the liability of the goods for confiscation itself, at the first place. It is therefore, obvious that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
