TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 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 Section 11 A ibid - there is nothing in the present appeals by the revenue to controvert the above findings. Regarding the plea of the respondent regarding entitlement of credit of duty already paid, I find that the cross appeal can agitate only matters which were decided in the impugned order. While cross appeal can be considered as an appeal for all purposes, even such appeal can only raise points which were subject matter of decision of impugned order - the cross appeals are liable to be rejected. Appeal rejected - decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respondent and to impose penalties on all three respondents. The case was adjudicated by the Original Authority, who vide order dated 26/11/2009 held that the main respondent fulfilled the requirements in terms of sub-Section (1A) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, he concluded the proceedings in the said case against all the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 28/02/2011 upheld Original Order. The Revenue has again preferred appeal against this order. 3. The Learned AR elaborated the grounds of appeal by Revenue. He submitted that the closure of proceedings approved by the lower Authorities cannot extend to penal proceedings under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t alongwith 25% of penalty has been paid by the main respondent and as such the proceedings were ordered to be closed by the Original Authority. Such closure was upheld by the first Appellate Authority. I find that legal position regarding closure of case has been examined, in detail by the Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant portions of his findings are as below :- The consequence and effect of such deposit has been mentioned in the first proviso of Sub-Section (2) of the Section 11A ibid. Which stipulates that the proceedings in respect of such person and other persons to whom notice is served shall be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated in the notice. I find that the word proceedings mentioned therein includes all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit of entire duty, interest and penalty of 25% of the duty involved by M/s Sachdeva Auto Centre within thirty days of the communication of the impugned show cause notice, the adjudicating authority has correctly not imposed penalty on the respondents. Therefore, I hold that the impugned order is proper and legal and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order . 6. Considering the above analysis, I find that there is nothing in the present appeals by the revenue to controvert the above findings. I find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the same are dismissed. 7. Regarding the plea of the respondent regarding entitlement of credit of duty already paid, I find that the cross appeal can agitate only matters which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
