TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscose Yarn etc. Learned counsel pointed out that on 21.12.1996 the Central Excise Officers visited appellant's factory and made a Panchnama seizing various books of accounts records etc. The officer also seized 44497.250 kgs of yarn which were lying in the factory premises on the ground that it was not entered in RG -1 which was last updated on 19.08.1996. Consequently, the SCN was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the seized yarn and to recover excise duty. Notice also included a demand of Rs 3,18,290/- of excise duty on shortage of yarn amounting to 15781.25 Kgs . The SCN also sought to impose penalties on appellant company and Rameshchandra Shah. The said SCN was confirming demand of central excise duty of RS . 24,78,032/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for requantification in view of the Tribunal's order. The matter was again decided by the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty of Rs 21, 94,611/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 2 Lacs on the Managing Director of the Appellant Company under Rule 209A of the central Excise Rules, 1944. The present appeals are against the said imposition of penalties. 2.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the penalties has been imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relies on the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival submission. I find that the issue regarding the demand of duty has been decided by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 04.2018. On the issue that was decided by the impugned order was regarding quantification of penalties. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of Punjab Recorder Ltd (Supra) wherein the following has been observed: "17. In regard to payment of interest, we note that charging of interest came to the statute book w.e.f. 28-9-1996. The demand in the present case pertains to the period 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1995, therefore, interest is not payable. 18. In so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we note that a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of violation of the Import Control Order and because of mis-declaration of value and evasion of customs duty. The majority set aside the penalty on the respondent No.1 because they negatived the finding under valuation and evasion and also in view of the order of remand. It is not possible to apportion the quantum of penalty between the contraventions found. Therefore, although we have upheld the Collector's finding on the issue of mis-declaration and evasion, the question of quantum of penalty will have to be re-determined by the Collector after determining the issue on the licensing aspect. 40. We make it clear that there was no finding by the Tribunal that the penalty imposed was unreasonable. On the other hand, the dissenting M....