9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent M/s Sachdeva Auto Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was engaged in the business of trading in automobile parts. They were purchasing two wheelers auto parts from M/s LML Limited (second respondent) and packed/repacked the same before further sale. With effect from 01/06/2006 in respect of automobile parts and components repacking/re-labeling will amount to process of manufacture liable to Central Excise duty in terms of Notification 11/2006-CE (NT) dated 29/05/2006. 2. Certain enquiries were conducted by the officers of Central Excise with the main respondent. It was noticed that in respect of auto components purchased by main respondent during April-May, 2006 from M/s LML Limited, the main respondent did not discharge due Central Excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by M/s LML Limited on the same goods which were used for repacking and re-labeling by the main respondent. Regarding closure of proceedings, he submitted that the case against all the respondents arose only due to alleged non-payment of Central Excise duty by the main respondent. On payment of such duty alongwith applicable penalty of 25% of duty the case was duly closed by the Original Authority. There is no cause of action further to proceed against the respondent in this case. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The Revenue is aggrieved that in spite of the main respondent fulfilling the condition by paying full duty liability with interest alongwith 25% penalty, the penal proceedings under Rule 26 canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first proviso of Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 A ibid. indicated towards inclusion of all contemplations and proposals stated in the notice against all the persons to whom notice has been issued under Sub-Section (1A) of Section 11 A of the Act ibid. In other words, it cannot be construed that impugned notice had not been issued to the respondent under Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 A of the Act ibid. Accordingly, the proposal for penalty under Rule 26 ibid. initiated in the impugned notice against the respondents has correctly been concluded by the adjudicating authority consequent to deposit of entire duty, interest and penalty of 25% of the duty involved by M/s Sachdeva Auto Centre in terms of first proviso to Sub-Section (2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
