2017 (10) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the Counsel on record, who had been duly instructed to appear. It is further explained that the appeal was properly being pursued by the appellant and they had engaged advocate for appearing in the matter; only for the non-appearance of the said advocate on the date fixed for hearing, the appellant should not be made to suffer and accordingly, it is prayed for restoration of the appeal. 2. From the perusal of the order sheet, we find that nobody appeared for the appellant on the previous dates 01/10/2016, 17/08/2016, 30/06/2016, 11/05/2016, when the matter was fixed for hearing before this Bench. However, in the interest of Justice we restore the appeal to its original number as the Counsel p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants were required to show cause as to why the duty of Rs. 9,15,063/- should not be recovered from them under Section 11A(1) of the Act alongwith interest as applicable and as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for violation of Rule 4 & 8 ibid. The Show Cause Notice culminated into Order-in-Original No. MP(Dem-29/2004) 23 of 2004 dated 31/03/2004 whereby the duty of Rs. 9,15,063/- was confirmed and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed and applicable interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was ordered to be recovered from the appellants. 5. This is the second round of litigation, in the earlier round, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.381/05 B d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....galore), wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed was set aside by the tribunal. 7. Heard the ld. A.R. for Revenue, who has relied on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that Rule 25 of CER, 2002 provides for penalty, subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, etc. (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any provisions of the Rules or the Notifications issued under these rules or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him, or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registra....