9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and again was guilty of evading duty in an illegal manner there is a valid reason to impose heavier penalty upon him - 9 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2009 - Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice V.K. Ahuja Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India , for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent [Order per : Deepak Gupta, J.]. - This Excise Reference has been admitted on the following questions of law:- "i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating the demand for penalty equal to duty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) holding that Section 11 AC of the Act came into statute Book w.e.f. 28.2.1996 only while duty in the instant case was sought to be determined under Sub-Section 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the concrete evidence/document like date-wise dispatch reports, monthly MIS feeder report and the shortage detected and not based upon the total raw material consumed and wastage which originated in the course of manufacture? v) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating the penalty on Sh.Satinder Kapoor imposed vide Order-in-Original No.54/Ce/99 dated 25.10.99 when the Tribunal itself in the Para 16 of the Order supra have held that Sh.Satinder Kapoor was party to the evasion of duty and is liable for penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules." It is not necessary to give detailed factual background of the case since the imposition of the excise demand is not disputed before us. It was held by all the authorities that the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. It came to the conclusion that since Sections 11AB and 11AC were introduced in the statute book only on 28.9.1996 no interest or penalty could have been imposed. The personal penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed upon the Managing Director was set-aside on the ground that in an earlier case for a similar offence the penalty of Rs.10 lakhs had been reduced to Rs.2 lakhs. This order is under challenge before us. There can be no manner of doubt that as far as Sections 11AB and 11AC are concerned, the Tribunal was right in holding that since these provisions came into the statute book w.e.f 28.9.1996 only, the authorities could not have relied upon these provisions to impose penalty and interest in respect of the proceedings relating to the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
