2018 (1) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commr.) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Vide the impugned order passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings, demand of duty of Rs. 5,78,301.08/- stands confirmed on the allegations and findings of clandestine removal. In addition, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- stands imposed upon them under Rule, 9 (2) and 52A read with Rule 173 of Central Excise Rule, 1944. 2. After he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansidhar Vs Union of India (supra). We find that in case of Bansidhar Vs Union of India it was the argument of the applicants that penalty could not be enhanced but it was not the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel had also pointed out that this Tribunal in case of Vallabh Alloys Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi reported in 2003 (157) ELT 398 (Tri.-Del) of Maestro Motors Ltd. Vs CCE B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with which the appellant is not aggrieved with. The only challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. I find that when the matter came up before the Tribunal in the first round of litigation, the appellant's appeal was rejected on merits and penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Further the matter was remanded only for re-quantification of the demand. The s....