TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 9-7-2010 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mall, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - All the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 2. M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sompura Tiles Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of glazed tiles. The factories of both the units were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 17-10-97, who conducted various checks and verifications. The premises of M/s. Sompura Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and of M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. also were put under search and a file containing loose slips were recovered. Shri S.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. For imposition of penalties on the said manufacturing units, he remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. 6. In remand proceedings Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties on the two manufacturing units to the extent of 100%. He also imposed penalties on the Directors. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeals before the Tribunal, being Appeal No. E/994/08 996/08 by the two companies. 7. One appeal, being Appeal No. E/1145/07 filed by M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. is against the order of rejection of refund claim, which the said appellant filed, when the demand was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner. The other appeals are filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest and 25% of penalty within a period of thirty days from today, in which case the penalty which stands reduced to 25% of the amount. 10. Learned advocate further submits that vide impugned orders, the authorities have also confiscated their plant, building, land machinery with an option to the assessee to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in case of each of the manufacturing unit. By relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Aplab Display Devices Systems Ltd. v. CCE Cus., Pune reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Mumbai), he submits that appellant is not repeated offender and as such harsh action of confiscation of land, plant machinery was not justified. In any ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner for consideration of penalties, it was not open to him to impose penalties on the directors in as much as there was no appeal filed by the Revenue against directors and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was only in respect of the manufacturing units. As such I agree with the learned advocate that the Revenue not having challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the directors, the adjudicating authority could not have imposed penalties on the directors in remand proceeding. The fact that no appeals were filed against the directors stand accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhavnagar in his letter dated 29-1-10 addressed to the learned senior departmental representative. 13. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
