9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Section 2 of Section 11A of the CEA, all proceedings stand concluded - Held that: - The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I Versus VIKAS GARG [2011 (10) TMI 554 - Punjab and Haryana High Court], where it was held that Once the proceedings against the firm stand concluded, penalty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case under proviso to Section 11A(4) (erstwhile proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944) by invoking extended period clause of limitation order to appropriate the amount of duty of ₹ 1,31,016/-already paid the notice, (ii) I confirm the recovery of interest in this case under Section 11AA (erstwhile Section 11AB) of Central Excise Act, 1944 order to appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nager (Noticee No. 2) of M/s Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys P. Ltd, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, (vi) I impose penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) on M/s Adinath Steel Re-rolling Mills, Jalna (Noticee No. 03) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main noticee had paid the entire Central Excise duty along with interest and 25% penalty of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 306) ELT 94 (P H). They have also relied on decision of Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (295) ELT 453 (Tri-Del.) and Tikam P. Bhojwani Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2011 (272) ELT 88 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 2. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 3. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the appellant was Authorized Signatory of M/s Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
