9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.2.1996 only while duty in the instant case was sought to be determined under Sub-Section 2 of Section 11A of the Act by issuing Show Cause Notice on 3.12.97 & which became payable with issue of Order-in-Original No.54/CE/99 dated 25.10.99, quite subsequent to receiving of Presidential assent for Finance Bill, 1996 (dated 28.9.96)? ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating demand for penalty equal to duty when the same was also confirmed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (The Rules) and Rule 173Q provides for imposition of penalty three times the value of goods whereas, here only penalty equivalent to duty has been imposed? iii) a) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in vacating demand of interest on delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise demand is not disputed before us. It was held by all the authorities that the manufacturer had clandestinely removed certain goods manufactured by the Company. On receipt of some secret information one tempo was intercepted and huge amount of Video and Audio tapes were seized on which duty had not been paid. It was found that the manufacturer had evaded duty. Show cause notice was issued to the manufacturer on 23.7.1993 and the Collector imposed duty of Rs.3,82,13,593.13 on the Company. The goods seized from the tempo were confiscated along with the vehicle. Personal penalty of Rs.one crore was imposed on the Company and penalty of Rs.50 lakhs was imposed upon Sh.Satinder Kapoor, Managing Director of the Company. Thereafter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these provisions to impose penalty and interest in respect of the proceedings relating to the period prior to 28.9.1996. However, we find that Rule 173Q of the Rules also provides for imposition of penalty up to three times of the value of the goods. In the present case the penalty imposed is only equivalent to the duty imposed on the goods. Even if Sections 11AB and 11AC were not applicable the authorities had also made reference to Rule 173Q and derived power under this Rule to impose penalty. Therefore, in our view the order of the learned Tribunal vacating the penalty is against law. We also find that the Tribunal has given no valid reasons for vacating the penalty imposed upon Sh.Satinder Kapoor. The Tribunal itself has held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
