TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -SM - 20729/2017 - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri T.V. Ajayan, Advocate, Ravi Shankar Chander Kumar, Advocates, For the Appellant Shri Mohammad Yousaf, Addl. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt.27/02/2009 passed by CCE, Bangalore in de novo proceedings conducted in pursuance of the Tribunal s final order No.206/2008 dt. 05/03/2008. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of an amount of ₹ 28,586/- on the appellant and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.1. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a partnership fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. In the de novo proceedings, the Commissioner passed the order dt.08/10/2001 raising demand of ₹ 2,03,717.50 under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with provision to Section 11A of the Act against the appellant as excise duty on power loom parts cleared clandestinely in the guise of castings by the appellant and imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Rule 173Q Being aggrieved by the de novo proceedings, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that while determining the demand of duty availed to consider the benefit available to the appellant an SSI unit under Notification No.175/86, the Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 14/01/2004 remanded the matter to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the adjudicating authority grossly erred in law in imposing penalty in excess of the amount already imposed in the proceedings in Order-in-Original dt. 31/10/2005 whereby the penalty of ₹ 45,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q on the duty payment of ₹ 1,93,343/-. He further submitted that it is settled position of law that the penalty imposed cannot be enhanced in de novo proceedings more so when the Revenue had not challenged the quantum of penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original which was challenged by the assessee. In support of his submissions, he relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
