9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant-revenue. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J -1. The present appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Rohtak under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 28.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/2032 of 2004 by proposing the following substantial questions of law: - " Whether the penalty under Section 11 A C of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173 Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is mandatory and equal to the duty demanded or the authority has discretion to impose lesser penalty?" 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Aravali India Ltd., formerly known as Aravali Pipes Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of five years; ii) I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate on wrongly availed Modvat credit or Rs.86,87,465/- from the party under Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act,1944; iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.86,87,465/- equal to the modvat credit availed fraudulently on M/s Aravali India Ltd., Hansi under Rule 173 Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.86,87,465/- on M/s S.K. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon under Rule 173 Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 passed in Appeal No.E/2032/04 in the case of respondent/assessee. 5. The question of law as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. The question of law sought to be raised by the appellant does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. CEA No.96 of 2007 titled as Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate Versus M/s S.K. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. against the order of the Tribunal passed in E/2031/04 has been admitted and is pending before this Court on a question of law similar to the proposed questions of law as in this appeal. The question proposed to be raised by the Revenue does not arise in the case of the respondent/assessee upon whom penalty was imposed under Rule 209 A of the erstwhile C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
