TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plea that the appeal of the company has not been signed by the competent officer as prescribed under the law as far as the company is concerned and hence the Bench held that it cannot be treated as competent appeal and so also the stay petition. It further held in para 3 of the said order that no cognizance can be taken for the same and therefore, the company's appeal was dismissed. However, the Registry has continued to link the appeal along with the appeal of the Managing Director No. E/577/96. As the appeal of the company has already been dismissed by Stay Order No. 181/97, dated 22-4-1997, we hold that the Company's appeal is no longer in subsistence and the appeal has been dismissed by the said stay order. 2. In the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant period with production and maintenance of machinery or with the clearance of excisable goods and hence there was no question of imposing penalty against him. The department had also initiated proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution before the Special Judge of Economic Offences at Hyderabad. The appellant before us represented by his advocate Shri T.S. Balasubramaniam, produced the said judgment dated 16th February, 1999 passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences in C.C. No.16 of 1997 by which the charge of collusion for evasion of duty has been found to be not proved by the department complainant and on that premise he has been acquitted. 4. Learned advocate's submission is that for the purpose of imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of ITC Ltd. & Ors. as reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 151 (Tri.) = 1998 (28) RLT 323 by which the Tribunal set aside the penalty under Rule 209A imposed on Director, who had not participated in the maintenance of registers or manufacture or removal of goods. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has not admitted the appeal of the Revenue against the dropping of proceedings on imposition of penalty on the Director in the ITC's case. Therefore, the law on imposition of penalty under Rule 209A having been gone into detail in the case of ITC, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court, he submits that the department has to establish primarily the involvement of any officer/appellant in the manufacture and clearance of clandestine goods. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out that the proceedings initiated by the department before the Special Court is for different offence for sentencing the appellant for criminal liability, the same is independent and does not have pari materia relevance to the proceedings. He also submits that evasion of duty and imposition of duty under Rule 209A which was not before the proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code initiated before the Special Court. He submits that there are large number of citations to the effect that criminal proceedings for prosecution and sentencing for offences under the Central Excise Act are independent for confirmation of demands and for imposition of penalty under different sections and rules of Central Excise Act/Rules. He also submits that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty. We also notice from the record that the appellant has produced the evidence to show that during the relevant period the company had been leased to M/s. Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. and that there was an arbitration award. From the impugned order, we notice that the Commissioner has not referred to these documents. Therefore, the Commissioner has not examined the case law on imposition of penalty under Rule 209A, which clearly lays down that penalty under this rule has to be imposed only on sufficient evidence is produced and established with regard to the involvement of a person for evasion of duty. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the matter has to go back to the Commissioner to re-examine the appellants plea with regard to non-invol....