9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he upheld the order of the original adjudicating Authority. The original adjudicating Authority had ordered as follows : "(i) I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,31,016/- (Rs. One Lakh Thirty one Thousand and Sixteen only) already paid vide GAR -7 Challan No. 50344 dated 29.03.2012 in the present case under proviso to Section 11A(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 11A(1A) of CEA, 1944, (iv) I impose redemption fine of Rs. 50, 000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only) under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in lieu of confiscation since the goods are not available for confiscation, (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) on Shri Vidhyadhar V. Muley, Authorised Signatory and Manager (Noticee No. 2) of M/s Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of the show-cause notice, under proviso to sub Section 2 of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, all proceedings stand concluded. In the written submission filed by the appellant they had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vs. Vikas Garg - 2014 (306) ELT 94 (P & H). They have also relied on deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Vikas Garg (supra) in para 6 of following order has been held as under: "6. We do not find any merit in the said argument. Once the proceedings against the firm stand concluded, penalty proceedings against partners of the firm cannot continue as Rule 26 of the Rules is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
