9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 ('the Act') against the Final Order No. 609-630/2009-Ex (DB), dated 4-9-2009 in Excise Appeal No. 1407 of 2009-Ex (BR), claiming following substantial questions of law :- "(i) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the appellant is liable to penalty under rule 25 is legal, when the provisions of the Rule 173Q(bbb) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) Whether penalty can be imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in absence of any proposal for the confiscation of the goods? (v) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal without following precedent decision on the same issue is legal having been passed without adhering to the requirement of judicial propriety of following the decision given by a Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 (Vee Kay Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise) reported as 2011 (266) E.L.T. 436 and therein the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, after holding that when the quantum of penalty was in the discretion of the Tribunal, the said quantum had to be determined taking into account all the facts and circumstances. In view of above, this appeal is disposed of in same terms and the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
