9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he liability of Rs. 65,54,595/- was confirmed jointly on both the aforesaid person. Therefore, the order impugned was passed without following the order of the Tribunal, hence, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order fixing liability separately against each person. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. RAJU Shri Vikas Doiphode , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajesh K Agarwal , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR This is the second round of appeal before this Tribunal and in the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that in the first round of appeal before this Tribunal the following order dated 12.08.2009 was passed by the Tribunal:- After allowing the stay petition, we proceed to decide the appeal itself, inasmuch as we find that the Commissioner vide his impugned order has confirmed duties and has imposed penalties on the appellants jointly and severally. Tribunal vide its earlier order has held that such confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties jointly and severally on various persons is not in accordance with law. Reference in this regard is made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Shanti processers which was followed in the case of M/s. Saikrupa Dyeing and Printing Mil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) impose penalties of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) each on Shri Mahesh M Harlalka and Shri Pradeep Sharma in terms of section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962; (V) impose penalties of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees) each on Shri Mahesh M Harlalka and Shri Pradeep Sharma in terms of rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; and (b) vacate the proceedings against Shri Manohar Mali. From the above operating potion of the order, it can be seen that the liability and recovery of rebate amount Rs. 65,54,595/- was once again confirmed against the Shri Mahesh M Harlalka and Shri Pradip Sharma jointly. It is clearly against the direction of the Tribunal whereby it was directed that the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
