TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstance it was held that no penalty could have been imposed under section 11 AC. In this back ground it was held that since joint penalty under section 11 AC and Rule 173 Q has been imposed and penalty under section 11 AC could not have been imposed therefore, joint imposition of penalties under section 11 AC read with Rule 173 Q could not be sustain - In the instant case the period involved is both before the introduction of section 11 AC after introduction of section 11 AC in the statute book. Therefore, the facts in the present case are different from the facts in the case relied upon by the appellant. In the case of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VERSUS TELEVISION COMPONENTS LTD. [ 2000 (2) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] also the matter was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that it was not entered in RG -1 which was last updated on 19.08.1996. Consequently, the SCN was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the seized yarn and to recover excise duty. Notice also included a demand of Rs 3,18,290/- of excise duty on shortage of yarn amounting to 15781.25 Kgs . The SCN also sought to impose penalties on appellant company and Rameshchandra Shah. The said SCN was confirming demand of central excise duty of RS . 24,78,032/- and Rs. 3,18,290 on the appellant company and personal penalties of Rs 5 Lacs each on Ashik R Shah and Shri R. B Shah. The appellant challenged the order before the Tribunal and Tribunal decided the issue vide final order No. A/598 -601/ WZB/2005/CI dated 12.05.2005 whereby th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944 read with 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty of Rs. 2 Lacs on the Managing Director of the Appellant Company under Rule 209A of the central Excise Rules, 1944. The present appeals are against the said imposition of penalties. 2.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the penalties has been imposed under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He pointed out that the penalties under the provisions of Section 11 AC and Rule 173 Q cannot be imposed jointly. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Punjab Recorder Ltd vs. CCE, Chandigarh- 2011 (132) ELT 41 (Tri. Del). Wherein n the following has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding quantification of penalties. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of Punjab Recorder Ltd (Supra) wherein the following has been observed: 17 . In regard to payment of interest, we note that charging of interest came to the statute book w.e.f. 28-9-1996. The demand in the present case pertains to the period 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1995, therefore, interest is not payable. 18 . In so far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we note that a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC. We note that Section 11AC came to the statute book only w.e.f. 28-9-1996 whereas in the instant case the demand pertains to the period 20-3-1992 to 13-7-1995. Hence penalty under Section 11AC on this demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asion and also in view of the order of remand. It is not possible to apportion the quantum of penalty between the contraventions found. Therefore, although we have upheld the Collector s finding on the issue of mis-declaration and evasion, the question of quantum of penalty will have to be re-determined by the Collector after determining the issue on the licensing aspect. 40 . We make it clear that there was no finding by the Tribunal that the penalty imposed was unreasonable. On the other hand, the dissenting Member who had opined against the remand, had held, in our opinion correctly, that in the circumstances of the case the quantum of the penalty was justified. 41 . The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd (Supra) also the matter was remanded to the lower authorities because the joint penalty for 2 offences was imposed and in the final order only one offence was upheld. Thus the facts in the case of Television Components Ltd are also different. 5. In view of the I do not find any error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Appellant. 6. The appeals are therefore dismissed. (Pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
