9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ashok Anand, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri P Juneja, AR ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY: All these appeals arise from the common order-in-original dated 30 March, 2012 passed in the case of M/s. Salasar Steel, its director Shri Pankaj Agrawal and these appellants. Excise duty of Rs. 1,37,55,732/- was demanded from the said M/s. Salasar Steel with interest along with equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. Further penalties have been imposed on these appellants and others under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants informs that M/s. Salasar Steel had filed writ petition No. 64 of 2012 before Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court vide order dated 4th July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and it will be communicated to the petitioner. 11. No other point was pressed into service. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove." 4. From the aforementioned operative order of the High Court, it is evident that the Hon'ble High Court have not interfered with the demand of duty confirmed against M/s. Salasar Steel and have remanded only for the limited purpose of recalculation of interest under section 11AB and also for recovering the penalty imposable under section 11AC of the Act and to further give opportunity to pay reduced penalty, if paid within the stipulated time. 5. The brief facts of the case are that these appellants are the supporting manufacturers. M/s. Salasar Steel was the merchant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 26 following the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner versus Woodmen Industries reported in 2004 (170) ELT A307 (SC) wherein it was observed that in such type of cases, no penalty can be imposed on a corporate entity. The penalty can be imposed only on a natural person and not on a firm. Notice was also taken of similar view taken by Larger bench of this Tribunal in Steel Tubes of India Ltd vs CCE, Indore reported in 2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri-LB). 7. The learner Authorized Representative for the Revenue have relied upon the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. He further relies on the rulings of this Tribunal in the case of Suraj Medical Agencies vs CCE, Chandigarh (3rd Member, 2015 (330) ELT 240. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
