TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings in abeyance. The said request was not accepted by the adjudicating authority on the ground that there is no stay order staying the operation of earlier order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and as such proceeded to decide the matter, without further providing opportunity to the appellants. As such the fact remains that the impugned order stands passed in the absence of any defence by the advocate - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after affording a proper opportunity to the appellant to put forth their defence. Imposition of penalties on co-noticees - Held that:- Their appeals are also remanded, inasmuch as the appeal of main appellants is being remanded and the learned advocate is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 365/-, that in respect of the show cause notice, the appellant and its Managing Director Shri C.L. Sharma filed application before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the case under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, that the settlement Commission vide order dated 06.06.2007 remanded the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for adjudicating; that against this order dated 06.06.2007 of the Settlement Commission, the appellant filed writ-petitions before the Hon ble Allahabad High Court; that Hon ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 11.12.2013 disposed of the writ-petition and directed the Commissioner to decide this matter within one month s time; that against this order of Hon ble High Court; the appellant had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded with direction to the adjudicating authority to re-decide the same, after observing the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned Advocate Shri S.S. Dabas appearing for the co-noticees submits that the challenge in the proceeding is only to imposition of penalties upon them in terms of Rule 26 (2) as also under Rule 25. The said Rules were not into existence during the relevant period and as such the penalties would not be imposable upon them in terms of the law declared by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Vee Kay Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported at 2011 (266) ELT 436 (P H) as also in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chadigar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
