9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period prior to 28.09.1996 cannot sustain. Appeal allowed in part. - E/00196/2009 - A/43401/2017 - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Shri Meenakshi Sundaram, Adv. For the Respondent: Shri S. Govindrajan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench The appellant is aggrieved by the penalty imposed. 1.1. Brief facts are that appellants are 100% E.O.U. engaged in manufacture of cable/cord for telephone instruments. They procure imported raw materials as well as indigenous raw material. Both without payment of duty. The finished goods are exported. As per the provisions of EXIM Policy, the scrap generated has to be cleared o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 AC was not in force for major part of the disputed period as the said provisions came into force only w.e.f. 28.09.1996. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determination of penalty. 3. Against this order, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, as CMA No.1295/2008. Meanwhile, pursuant to the remand order, the original authority passed the de novo order-in-original imposing equal penalty to the tune of under 11 AC read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 4. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram submitted that the Tribunal while remanding the matter had directed the adjudicating authority to re-determine the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority that they have filed an appeal before High Court against the final order of the Tribunal, remanding the matter. In spite of this, we find that the adjudicating authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is also seen in the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.07.2007 that the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner has imposed equal penalty without having regard to the fact that section 11 AC was not in force during the major part of the dispute. Again, the imposition of composite penalty under section 11AC and Rule 173Q was held to be erroneous. Even after remand, the adjudicating authority without taking into cognizance the said observations of the Tribunal has imposed equal penalty. On such score, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
