9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Sec. 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to formulate the following substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this court. "Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is correct in completely waiving the penalty on the Director saying that the consolidated/ composite penalty is not legally permissible when wrong mention of Section or Rules does not vitiate the demand and when Order-in-Original invoked Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present tax Appeal are that M/s. Kansal Tex-O-Tube Pvt. Ltd. is a 100% EOU. It is engaged in the manufacture of yarn falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The officers of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed on the unit as well as its Director. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, on 8.3.2002, two separate appeals were were filed before the CESTAT. While disposing of the said appeals, the Tribunal has observed that 100% EOU imported PFY without payment of duty. The Tribunal has also upheld confiscation and duty demand. The Tribunal has, however, set aside the penalty as unsustainable for the reason that it is a consolidated/composite penalty imposed under Sec.112(b) of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, which is not legally permissible. 6. It is this order of the Tribunal which is under challenge in the present Tax Appeal. 7. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereunder to levy composite penalty. He has therefore submitted that the Tribunal has taken a correct view, which neither warrants any interference by this court nor gives rise to any substantial question of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the order of the authorities below, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken the correct view in holding that composite/consolidated penalty is not leviable under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act as well as under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. Our attention is drawn to the decision of the Bombay Tribunal in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Goel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II, 2008 (223) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
