9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per: Archana Wadhwa Vide the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, demand of duty of Rs. 5,78,301.08/- stands confirmed on the allegations and findings of clandestine removal. In addition, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- stands imposed upon them under Rule, 9 (2) and 52A read with Rule 173 of Central Excise Rule, 1944. 2. After hearing both the side duly represented by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in case of Bansidhar Vs Union of India it was the argument of the applicants that penalty could not be enhanced but it was not the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel had also pointed out that this Tribunal in case of Vallabh Alloys Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi reported in 2003 (157) ELT 398 (Tri.-Del) of Maestro Motors Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore-I reported as 2005 (183) ELT 467 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. I find that when the matter came up before the Tribunal in the first round of litigation, the appellant's appeal was rejected on merits and penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Further the matter was remanded only for re-quantification of the demand. The said order of the Tribunal has admittedly not been ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
