TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r two separate penalties, one u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 and another u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/131/2009-EX[SM] With CROSS Application No. E/CROSS/54/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 70269/2017 - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri D. K. Deb, Assistant Commissioner, (AR), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consulta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Appeal. Further, relied on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Versus Gahoi Foods Private Ltd. reported at 2004 (168) E.L.T. 479 (Tri. - Delhi) wherein it has held - allowing the appeal of Revenue that non apportionment of penalty under two provisions of law, namely Section 11AC of the Act Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 25 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) had not taken into consideration the fact that once suppression of facts with intent to evade duty has been established. In a particular case, the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods or ₹ 10,000/- whichever is greater, is imposable. 3. The ld. Consultant for the respondent-assessee relies on the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, issued under these Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or any importer who issues an invoice, on which Cenvat credit can be taken or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods, in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
