2015 (5) TMI 625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate Tribunal was right in imposing penalty on the appeal under Rule 57U[6] in the facts of this case?" 3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing goods like synthetic filament yarn which are excisable goods covered under Heading No. 5402.32 of the Central Excise Tariff. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 3467/02 which was the appeal filed by the appellant herein and also in Appeal No. 3428/02 which was filed before the Appellate Tribunal by the respondent Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. Both these appeals involved the same subject matter, but there being two appeals filed by the appellant as well as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribed under Rule 57R[3] of the said Rule and therefore, the credit of duties paid on the said capital goods was not permissible. 7. The appellant filed reply dated 15.2.2000 to the above show cause notice. 8. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise passed Order in Original dated 22.9.2000 denying the modvat credit of Rs. 4,52,500/- with penalty of equal amount under Rule 57U[6], and also demanding interest under Rule 57U[8] of the said Rules. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals], Surat, which came to be decided by the Commissioner [Appeals] by order in appeal dated 3.6.2002, whereby the demand of duty was upheld. However, the appellate authority set aside the penalty on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l modified the order of the Commissioner [Appeals] by imposing penalty of Rs. 45,250/-. 12. According to the appellant the above order of the Tribunal is passed without hearing the appellant because the appellant had not even received the hearing notice for the appeal and therefore the appellant could not remain present before the Appellate Tribunal when the appeal was heard. 13. Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel for Mr. P.M. Dave for the appellant has urged that the Tribunal committed an error in imposing penalty of Rs. 45,250/- being 10% of the duty and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is illegal as the Commissioner [Appeals] has recorded that the provision of Rule 57U[6] was not in existence in the year 1994 and the same has bee....