2018 (1) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovindarajan, AC (AR) - for the Respondents ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeal is only to imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules 1944, in the remand order passed by the Commissioner. 2. After hearing the Ld. Advocate, Shri T.R Ramesh, and Ld. DR we note that the issue pertains to inclusion of the amortization cost of mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he statute book, no penalty was imposable. As such, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the issue of imposition of penalties in terms of Section 11 AC for the period subsequent to 28.8.96. As regards assessee's challenge to imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q, the matter was left to the Commissioner for taking a fresh decision, depending upon the quantification of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined finality. In such a scenario, the appellant cannot be held guilty of any malafide so as to invoke the provisions of Rule 173Q. He also submits that the penalty under Section 11 AC having already been imposed, a separate penalty under Rule 173 Q is not justified. 7. After hearing the Ld. DR, we find ourselves in agreement with the LD. Advocate. Admittedly, during the relevant period, the is....