TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appellants Shri P A Daulatkhan , Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER : C J MATHEW M/s Murli Industries Ltd and two individuals are in appeal before the Tribunal against order [order-in-appeal no. PVR/188 to 196/NGP/2013 dated 20th March 2013], [order-in-appeal no. PVR/231 to 232/NGP/2013 dated 22nd April 2013] of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur upholding demands and penalties that were respectively fastened on them in eleven proceedings arising from proposal to deny the benefit of concessional rate of duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 (at serial no. 152(B) availed on import of 'waste paper' which, instead of having been used in manufacturing of 'newsprint', wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ode, 2016, the impugned order should be set aside. The appeals before the Tribunal had been filed by M/s Murli Industries and, therefore, in accordance with (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary.' (emphasis supplied) in section 129B of Customs Act, 1962, there was no scope for annulling the impugned order without hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d contingent upon their individual roles in such liability; de hors finding on confiscation, the penalty will not survive and it is not the case of the Learned Counsel that the two individuals were also within the jurisdiction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 5. However, in view of the proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the merit of the challenge to the confiscation as well as the liability to duty not having been pressed by the Learned Counsel, we, by recourse to rule 22 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, abate the proceedings insofar as the appeals of M/s Murli Industries is concerned. 6. Insofar as the penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e importer-appellant had furnished the 'und-use' certificate issued by the central excise authorities and that the findings against the individual-appellants in the impugned order does not specify the manner in which they had contributed to the furnishing of the 'end-use' certificate as it is the unacceptability of evidence of end use that prompted invoking of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. It is only their overall role in the managerial team of the importer-appellant that appears to have influenced the imposition of penalty on the two individuals. It is observed that the goods have been held liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and that the original authority had held them liable to confiscation under secti....