TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased thereon, the duty liability having been calculated - imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994 – Held that: - Apart from the above modification, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. - E/1368-1374/2009 - 1379-1385/2009-EX(PB) - Dated:- 6-11-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. 3. By the said order, the Tribunal while disposing the appeal filed by the assessee, had remanded the matter to the Original Authority for determining the duty amounts and the penalties afresh with the following observation "In the circumstances, the assessable value adopted for the duty paid goods could rightly constitute the assessable value for clandestinely removed goods also. In this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted above clearly discloses that the adjudicating authority had merely adopted the valuation for the goods clandestinely removed similar to the valuation in case of the goods which were cleared on payment of duty. The impugned order clearly discloses the Commissioner having adopted The same method while arriving at the value of the goods which were clandestinely re moved and based thereon, the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the same, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the proprietary concern M/s. MIL as well as the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the proprietary concern M/s. Minocha Brothers are liable to be quashed. Similarly, penalty imposed on proprietary concern M/s. RKTC to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- which is in addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- on the proprietor is also to be quashed. 7. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unsustainable. The same is accordingly, hereby quashed. Consequently the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed on M/s. MMPL under Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173B, 173F, 173G, and 226, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed on M/s. MAI under Rule 9(1), 52A, 53, 173B, 173F, 173G and 226 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on M/s. Minocha Brothers under Rule 9(1), 52A, 53, 173B, 173F, 173C and 226 of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
