TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. Both these appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original No. 16/2002 dated 9-8-2002 by which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II, has imposed a penalty under Rule 209A on the appellants Company to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director Shri Jatish N. Seth. The Tribunal, by Final Order No. 1099 to 1104/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s enhanced the penalty on the appellant company to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- and retained Rs. 50,000/- penalty on the Director. 2. It is the contention of the appellant that when the demands raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 27-1-1995 to an extent of Rs. 21,20,966/- on M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. has been set aside, then the question of imposing penalty under Rule 209A does not arise. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... psules cleared with the brand name of another manufacturer and hence they should pay the penalty under Rule 209A. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar and learned SDR. 4. The learned Counsel submitted that when the demands in the Show Cause Notice made against M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. have been dropped, the collateral charge of abetting in the evasion of duty is not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of duty on M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. is not sustainable. Therefore, the collateral charge brought against the appellant under Rule 209A that they had abetted M/s. Eros Pharma (P) Ltd. in evading duty does not sustain. The Commissioner has proceeded on a different footing and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- on the appellant company and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director respectively, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
