2009 (11) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Surendra Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Since common question of law and facts arise in all these appeals, they were heard together and are oeing disposed of by this common order. 2.  We have heard the learned advocate for the appellants and learned DR and perused the records. All these appeals arise from order dated 16-2-09 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturers. The quantum of penalty would also depend upon the amounts of duty payable." 4.  The learned advocate while assailing the impugned order sought to raise various points in relation to methodology adopted for valuation of the product which were stated to have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. However, is not permissible for this Tribunal to go into those issues....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly the amount of duty was required to be calculated alongwith the amount of penalty, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commission in that regard in the impugned order. 5.  The learned advocate, however, is justified in contending that the Commissioner could not have imposed penalty on the proprietor in addition to the proprietary firm or vice-versa. Indeed the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r various rules, has also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Indeed, the impugned order discloses that in case of the company M/s. MMPL and the proprietary concern M/s. MAI and M/s. Minocha Brothers apart from imposing penalty under Section 11AC the penalty has also been imposed on various provisions of law. In fact, the penalty imposable and imposed under Section ....