TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Advocate at Sl. Nos.6 to 8. Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for appellants, at Sl.Nos.9 to 12. Present for the respondent : Shri R.K. Verma, DR Per Justice Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these matters, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. We have heard Advocates for the parties and DR for the respondents. 2. These matters have been remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by Orders dated 17.03.2011 and 18.05.2011 to determine the quantum of penalty afresh. 3. By order dated 18.5.2011 passed in Excise Appeals Nos.158,159, 168,169, 174, 176, 193, 209, 211 and 212 of 2010 on 18.5.2011, the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own to be distinguishable. Accordingly, we hold that the amended provisions will not apply to the acts committed prior thereto. 10. Inspite of non-applicability of rule 26(2), penalty could be levied as the appellant was concerned in selling or dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation inasmuch as the appellant claimed to have sold the goods in respect of which the cenvat credit was taken. IN such a case, rule 25(1)(d) and 26 (1) are also applicable. The person who purports to sell goods cannot say that he was not a person concerned with the selling of goods and merely issued invoice or that he did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. The appellant issued invoices without delivery of goods with intent to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of each cash, is the only way in which such judgement may be equitable distinguished.' 5. Ld. Advocates appearing for the appellants placing reliance in the decision in the Larger Bench in the matter of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur Vs. CCE, Patna reported in 1986 (23) ELT 205 (Tribunal) and the order passed by the Apex Court in the Appeal arising therefrom in the matter of Collector Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. reported in 1997 (95) ELT A142 (SC) submitted that the provisions of law comprised under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 clearly gives discretion to the adjudicating authority in the matter of fixation of the quantum of penalty and the same has to be decided commensurate to the gravity of the violat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 of the said Rules, which is attracted in the matter in hand in relation to the imposition of penalty does not make any differentiation between manufacturers and registered dealers in that regard. 9. The Larger Bench in Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. while dealing with the provisions of Rule 25 had held that the amount mentioned in the Rule -is the maximum and not the minimum and amounts shall not exceed the duty determined and while exercising discretion to fix the amount, the authorities are supposed to give due regard to the relevant factors. It was also held that even where a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authorities have discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty depending upon the facts and circumstances o....