2011 (9) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Central Excise Act, 1944.   This application is at the instance of an manufacturer and is directed against order dated 25th April, 2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata in MA (C)OD)-28/09 and SP-23/09 (in Ex. Appeal No.23/09) thereby affirming the demand of pay.   Being dissatisfied, the manufacturer has come up with the present application.   There was a demand for Rs.1,46,37,793/- towards duty along with interest thereon and also a penalty of Rs.5 lakh had been imposed on the appellant.   The demand had arisen because during the period from November, 2006 to March, 2007, the appellant company defaulted in payment of central excise duty withi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and a penal action should not be initiated in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.   Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 31st March, 2008 passed an order by which the appellant was directed to pay duty of Rs.1,46,37,793/- along with interest and further a sum of Rs.5 lakh was imposed as penalty under the provisions of Rule 25(i)(a) read with Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.   Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and by the order dated 25th April, 2011 the said Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the manufacturer and affirmed the order of demand.   Being dissatisfied, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are of the view that there being no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in passing the order dated 5th June, 2006 and the said order having attained finality as the appellant did not challenge the said order, it is not competent for the appellant to plead before us that it has the right not to comply with the directions contained therein and at the same time, it can avoid the consequences prescribed under the law for non-compliance of a binding order passed under the Act.   We find that the Tribunal below rightly turned down the objection as the appellant undisputedly has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 5th June, 2006.   We, thus, find that there is no illegality in the ....