https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153074 In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority was bound by the limited scope of the remand and could not reopen the settled valuation methodology for clandestinely removed goods; the duty computation made on that basis was therefore sustained. A proprietary concern and its proprietor could not be penalised separately because they are not distinct persons for penalty purposes, and additional penalties under other provisions were unsustainable where no independent basis was recorded after imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty-related determination remained undisturbed, while redundant and unsupported penalties were deleted. en-us Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153074 In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority was bound by the limited scope of the remand and could not reopen the settled valuation methodology for clandestinely removed goods; the duty computation made on that basis was therefore sustained. A proprietary concern and its proprietor could not be penalised separately because they are not distinct persons for penalty purposes, and additional penalties under other provisions were unsustainable where no independent basis was recorded after imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty-related determination remained undisturbed, while redundant and unsupported penalties were deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153074