TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r which penalty (Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-) was imposed by the lower authorities on the respondents. The penalty was imposed in one case under Section 11AC read with Rule 12 and in another case under Rule 26. 2. The reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-enhancement of penalty is as follows :- "However, from the judgments of Hon'ble CEGAT in the cases relied upon by the respondent M/s. Delta Elastomel, Plant II, and so also in the case laws mentioned below it is noticed that Hon'ble CEGAT and Hon'ble High Court have held that penalty under Section 11AC equal to duty amount is maximum but not mandatory. (i) Alchemie Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-II - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 745 (Tribunal), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never aggrieved of the order of the lower authorities and only at this late stage without following the procedure of filing the appeal or cross objection they are pleading for relief. 6. Learned Advocate has brought forward the following case laws :- (i) 1994 (70) E.L.T. 225 (Tribunal) - Polycone Paper Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay-1. The Tribunal had an occasion to examine similar matter in this case though the Revenue (respondent) had not filed any appeal or cross objection against that part of the order of the Collector (Appeals). This Order of the Tribunal also referred to Rule 10 of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 which reads as under :- "10. Grounds wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e granted special leave to appeal from it. Consideration of justice, therefore, require that this Court should in appropriate cases permit a party placed in such a position to support the judgment in his favour even upon grounds which were negative in that judgment." In this judgment the Apex Court held that the respondents cannot be precluded in this appeal from canvassing from reversal of a finding contained in the impugned judgment despite its end result being in their favour. Learned Advocate again refers to the case of Polycon Papers Ltd. and argued that the Code Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 33 which empowers the Appellate Court to consider even though appeals may not have been filed against such decree. 7. Learned A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "41. Right to file cross-objection is the exercise of substantive right of appeal conferred by law. Cross-objections partake of the right of preferring an appeal. The procedure is different and so is the rule of limitation [See, Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Engineers & Ors. v. Intnl. Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd. - JT 2003(2) S.C. 103 and Superintending Engineer & Ors. v. B. Subha Reddy - (1999) 4 SCC 423]. Against a decision by the High Court or Tribunal which is partly in favour of one and partly in favour of the other, both the parties are aggrieved and each one of them has a right to move an application in this Court seeking leave to appeal. One who does not do so and ....