TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continue to hold good, even after payment of full duty liability alongwith interest and 25% of penalty, is against the provisions of Section 11A (2). In Raman Gandhi vs. CCE, Delhi [2015 (3) TMI 1110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal concluded that if against a show cause notice the main party paid duty, interest and 25% duty as penalty, then the proceedings initiated through the show cause notice comes to an end. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/3254 of 2009 (SM) - A/53369/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-5-2017 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member ( Technical ) Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. He held that the provisions of Section 11A (2) of the Act is rightly applicable to the present case and, as such, the proceedings in respect of respondent manufacturer as well as its Director should have been concluded. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The learned AR elaborated the grounds of appeal and the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted certain case laws in this regard. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The Revenue contested the impugned order on the ground that the facility of closure of proceedings as contemplated in Section 11A (2) is not applicable for the proceedings for confiscation of finished goods/raw material under Rule 25 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The interpretation of Revenue that the proceedings under Rule 25 and Rule 26 will continue to hold good, even after payment of full duty liability alongwith interest and 25% of penalty, is against the provisions of Section 11A (2). 5. The Tribunal in various earlier occasions had examined similar set of issues and held that the proceedings initiated in the same show cause notice shall stand concluded and no separate proceedings for penalty under Rule 26 or Rule 25 is tenable. In Sonam Clock Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2012 (278) E.L.T. 263 (Tri. Ahmd.), the Tribunal observed as below :- 12. Thus, as per the scheme of these provisions, legislative intent seems to be that, if a person pays within 30 days of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
