TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether a penalty imposed u/s 11 AC can be less than the amount of duty determined to be payable u/s 11 92) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. The question has arisen in the following factual background. M/s Haldiram Marketing Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the party"), B-1/H-8, Mohan Co. Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 were engaged in the manufacture of cookies, pastries and biscuits etc. falling under chapter heading 19 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. During a visit by the Central Excise officers on a specific information, it was noticed that there were various machines which were being used in the manufacture of sweet meats of different types. Besides, electric bakin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Notification No. 8/2000-CE and 9/2000-CE both dated 1.3.2000 envisaged that the exemption contained in these notifications shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name (whether registered or not0 of another person. Since the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of goods in the brand name of another person, and as such they were liable to pay duty on the said branded goods. 6. A show cause notice C.No. CE-13/Prev/MOD-II/ Seizure-cum-offence/HR/21/2000/833 dated 5.2.01 was issued to the respondent proposing confirmation of duty amounting to Rs. 4,11,190/- confiscation of 40 Kgs. of biscuits seized by the visiting Central Excise Officers, under Rule 173 Q (1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for imposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be abated from the cum duty price actually received and liable to be received as a consideration for sale of goods and directed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to re-quantify the duty demand. The Department had filed an appeal before CESTAT against the orders of the Commissioner (appeals) on cum-duty-price aspect which is still pending. 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), the party M/s Haldiram Marketing Ltd. had also filed an appeal before CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its final Order No. 607-08/04-NB (c) dated 30.08.2004, has upheld the demand of duty. The respondent in their appeal before the CESTAT had contended that no penalty could be imposed under section 11AC and no interest demanded under Section 11AB....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff's case (supra) was not correctly decided but Chairman, SEBI's case (supra) has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered. The mater shall now be placed before the Division Bench to deal with the matter in the light of what has been stated above, only so far as the cases where challenge to vires of Rule 967Q(5). In all other cases the orders of the High Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, are quashed and the matter remitted to it for disposal in the light of present judgments. Appeals except Civil Appeal Nos. 3388 of 2006, 3397 of 2003, 3398-99 of 2003, 4096 of 2004, 4316 of 2007, 4317 of 2007, 5277 of 2006, 675 of 2007, 1420....