2023 (1) TMI 591 - AT - Central Excise
Quantification of penalties - levy of composite penalties under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Clandestine removal - hank yarn - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of PUNJAB RECORDER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [2001 (5) TMI 86 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI] - the facts in the of Punjab Recorders are significantly different. In the said case the period in dispute was 20.03.1992 to 13.07.1995. Section 11 AC came into statute book with effect from 28.09.1996 i.e. after the disputed period. In this circumstance it was held that no penalty could have been imposed under section 11 AC. In this back ground it was held that since joint penalty under section 11 AC and Rule 173 Q has been imposed and penalty under section 11 AC could not have been imposed therefore, joint imposition of penalties under section 11 AC read with Rule 173 Q could not be sustain - In the instant case the period involved is both before the introduction of section 11 AC after introduction of section 11 AC in the statute book. Therefore, the facts in the present case are different from the facts in the case relied upon by the appellant.
In the case of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VERSUS TELEVISION & COMPONENTS LTD. [2000 (2) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] also the matter was remanded to the lower authorities because the joint penalty for 2 offences was imposed and in the final order only one offence was upheld. Thus the facts in the case of Television & Components Ltd are also different.
There are no error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Appellant.