9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raises following substantial question of law which can be gainfully reproduced as under :- "Whether the order of the CESTAT meets the statutory requirement of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is deemed to be "Judicial Proceedings" under sub-section 3 of section 14 ibid, within the meaning of section 193 and section 128 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?" 3. The facts giving rise to filing of the above Appeal can be stated thus :- A show cause notice came to be issued to the Respondents, who are engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods viz. M S Wool falling under Chapter Heading 7323.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said show cause notice alleged that the Respondents have contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clearance of such products during the period from April 1996 to March 1997 totally amounting to Rs. 2,66,223/- should not be demanded and recovered from them, and why amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- totally amounting to Rs. 2,55,000/- paid voluntarily by them vide T.R. 6 challan dated 18-11-97, 4-12-97 and 13-2-98 should not be appropriated against the duty demanded and, why mandatory penalty equal to the amount so determined should not be recovered and interest at the appropriate rate on the duty so determined as also penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with 9(2) and Rule 52A(8) should not be imposed upon them and, why land, building, plant, machinery, materials etc. should not be confiscated under Rule 173A(2). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... First Appellate Authority did not find any valid grounds to interfere with the remaining part of the order in original passed by the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, in so far as imposition of penalty on Shri Dinesh T. Magia was concerned, the same was confirmed. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30-10-2003, the Respondents filed Appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (CESTAT) along with the said Appeal, the Respondents also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit and by order dated 2-12-2004, the CESTAT, in view of the fact that entire duty amount stood paid by the Appellants, dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty. The CESTAT thereafter proceeded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
