9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of M/s. Akshay Daman Solvents Pvt. Limited and demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,36,887/- with interest and penalty of equal amount and personal penalty of Rs. One lakh is pending against them. The appellant vide their letter dated 15.06.2010 replied that they were furnishing indemnity bond to safe guard the Revenue and paid only Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,36,887/- through cash with a condition to pay the balance amounts within three months. Subsequently, the appellants contended that there was an error in demanding duty, penalty and personal penalty from them as penalty under Rule 173Q (1) should not be imposed in the absence of apportionment of the penalty. They also relied upon the following decisions :- (a) Agar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority; (b) An order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A; (c) An order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Board) or the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Commissioner of Central Excise, either before or after the appointed day, under section 35A, as it stood immediately before that day : Thus, it is very clear that Tribunal can entertain appeal only if the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Supreme Court, appellant are liable for the dues against M/s. Prince Paper Mills. As regards interest, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Elastolan Engineers and accordingly there is a need to re-calculate the interest amount as per law and as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited above. As regards penalty, Hon ble Supreme Court in Para 8 of the judgment in Macson observed that penalty cannot be recovered from the successor since successor did not get an opportunity to contest the same. Relevant Para 8 is reproduced as under :- 8.The Department having initiated the proceedings under Section 11A of this Act adjudicated liability of respondent No. 4 and held that respondent No. 4 is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
