Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1447 - CESTAT NEW DELHIPenalty u/r 26 - Manufacture - N/N. 11/2006-CE (NT) dated 29/05/2006 - The Revenue is aggrieved that in spite of the main respondent fulfilling the condition by paying full duty liability with interest alongwith 25% penalty, the penal proceedings under Rule 26 cannot be closed - Held that: - it cannot be construed that impugned notice had not been issued to the respondent under Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 A of the Act ibid. Accordingly, the proposal for penalty u/r 26 ibid. initiated in the impugned notice against the respondents has correctly been concluded by the adjudicating authority consequent to deposit of entire duty, interest and penalty of 25% of the duty involved by M/s Sachdeva Auto Centre in terms of first proviso to Sub-Section (2) of the Section 11 A ibid - there is nothing in the present appeals by the revenue to controvert the above findings. Regarding the plea of the respondent regarding entitlement of credit of duty already paid, I find that the cross appeal can agitate only matters which were decided in the impugned order. While cross appeal can be considered as an appeal for all purposes, even such appeal can only raise points which were subject matter of decision of impugned order - the cross appeals are liable to be rejected. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
|