9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 2002 whereas the duty was demanded alongwith interest and penalty was proposed under the provisions of Section 11A/11AA/11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the show cause notices have alleged different offences to have been committed by the appellants, which are punishable under different provisions of the law - Penalty for both the show cause notices irrespective that they are arising out of the same transaction of acts cannot be called as double jeopardy. Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 51374 of 2019 [SM] - FINAL ORDER No. 50713/2020 - Dated:- 13-7-2020 - MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Ram Prashad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the Respondent O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orth ₹ 4,10,000/- and its subsequent adjustment towards the amount payable by the respondents. While considering the findings of the original adjudicating authority qua this amount, the same were upheld and the appeal was rejected. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Mr.Ram Prashad, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.Juneja, ld. Authorised Representative for the Respondent. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the said currency amount was confiscated alleging the same to be the sale proceed of clandestine removal of the goods and as such, it stands included in the total value of clandestine removal. The Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 47,42,420/- has already been con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longwith interest and penalty was proposed under the provisions of Section 11A/11AA/11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Both the show cause notices have alleged different offences to have been committed by the appellants, which are punishable under different provisions of the law. Penalty for both the show cause notices irrespective that they are arising out of the same transaction of acts cannot be called as double jeopardy. In the given circumstances, I endorse the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) as given in para 14 of the order under challenge. It reads as: 14. The word confiscation implies appropriation consequential to seizure. The essence and the concept of confiscation is that after confiscation, the property of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
