2011 (4) TMI 1485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion raised for our consideration are as follows: "(i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in ordering to fix the separate/individual liability of the seven persons including the Respondent when their omissions and commissions in perpetuating the fraud and causing loss of revenue are so intermingled that their individual liability cannot be ascertained. (ii) In this case, the basic fact that rebate of Rs. 1,24,19,869/- was fraudulently availed by the said seven persons in the name of the said non-existent unit is admitted and established beyond doubt. Where the law itself provides that levy and collection of duty are two different concepts. The former i.e. levy arises at initial stage by virtue of the Provisions unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In - Original & para 5 (B) of this appeal for not doing so." We have perused the orders on record with the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant. It appears that for alleged irregularly claimed rebate, proceedings were instituted for recovery of interest and penalty. Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 26th February, 2009 ordered recovery of rebate amount of Rs. 1,24,19,869/-. He also ordered recovery of interest for such claim which he categorized as fraudulent. He also imposed penalty equivalent to the principal sum. Directions in this regard may be noted. "(3) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,24,19,869/- (Rs. One Crore, Twenty Four Lacs, Nineteen Thousands, Eight Hundreds and Sixty Nine Only) upon M/s. Deep Textiles....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and penalty separately in respect of different individuals and also supply the relied upon documents before passing the order. Further, the appellants shall be given proper opportunity to present their case before the final decision is taken." Before us learned Counsel for the Revenue contended that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. It was submitted that the documents were never demanded by the assessee. One application filed by an Advocate purporting to be representative of one of the assessee was not entertained since no Vakalatnama was produced. We are of the opinion that no question of law arises. Tribunal merely remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration in light of the fact that individual liability was required to b....