9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,87,131/- against the company and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,80,000/- on the Director (present appellant) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the basis of a finding that the appellant had indulged in acts of omission and commission in contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, both the Company and the Director preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). While those appeals were pending, the Company chose to go in for settlement under the Kar Vivad Sama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said circular. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays for setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. 5. Ld. JDR Shri S.C. Pushkarna submits that there is nothing in the memorandum of the appeal to show that the appellant had raised before the lower appellate authority the issue whether the penalty imposed on him was sustainable when the penalty on the main party stood vacated under the KVS Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) had no occasion to consider any such issue as apparently, the issue was not raised before her. Therefore, ld. JDR prays for remand of the matter to the lower appellate authority, in the event of the appeal not being rejected. 6. I have carefully examined the above submissions. It is an undisputed fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase held that, in view of the appeal of the main manufacturer having been settled under the KVS Scheme, it would not be desirable to hold their co-noticee to be guilty of contravening the provisions of Central Excise law. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on the co-noticee. The lower appellate authority ought to have set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, by following the Board's circular which was binding on that authority as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions including its decision in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs [2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.)].
7. In light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
