TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the issue and rendered a finding. Without doing so, the Tribunal merely observed that they need not interfere with the decision of the lower appellate authority as regards the penalty for the brief period from 23-7-1996 to 28-9-1996 when the contention of the Department that post 28-9-1996 also the Department was entitled to levy penalty and that the period covered for adjudication was from 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1998. Hence, this question requires consideration of the Tribunal. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3501 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri P. Mahadevan, SCGSC, for the Appellant. Shri V.S. Manoj for K. Vaithees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating Authority rejected the contention raised by the assessee and by order dated 21-12-1999, confirmed the demand and adjusted the amount paid by the assessee and also imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of duty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Authority found that the Original Authority has not assigned any reasons in support of its conclusion and therefore, remanded the matter to the Original Authority to re-examine the claim made by the assessee that they have not cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was brought into force on 23-7-1996 [and not on 28-9-1996 as mentioned in the order-in-appeal, dated 20-4-2000]. Therefore, the penal provision can have only prospective effect and there is no question of imposing penalty for the period prior to 23-7-1996. Having held so, the Tribunal observed that the question that would survive is whether the decision of the lower appellate authority should be interfered with insofar as the period from 23-7-1996 to 28-9-1996 is concerned and the Tribunal did not interfere with the decision of the lower appellate authority for the said period and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal, which has been admitted on the above questions of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
