2010 (4) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the duty confirmed against the appellants and as also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty and also additional penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the Director of the appellant company. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that the materials on record do not disclose the necessary ingredients of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that, therefore, the Department was not entitled for invoking extended period of limitation and consequently the appellants would not have been saddled with the penalty. He further submitted that at the relevant time there were divergent views expressed by different Benches of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtment. 6. As regards the penalty amount is concerned, it cannot be disputed that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the liability in that regard clearly follows from the adjudication as regards the duty liability and the finding about satisfaction of the ingredients of Section 11AC of the said Act. 7. Perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court while remanding the matter as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellants does not disclose that the issue regarding invocation of extended period of limitation had been dealt with by the Apex Court; rather it was left to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority while re....