- (1.) IN the present case, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise to the Respondent No. 1 on two grounds, namely, (i) there was clandestine removal of goods to avoid excise duty and (ii) the value of the goods which were removed was shown much lesser than the price at which those goods were sold to the customers and in this manner it was undervalued resulting into lesser payment of excise duty.
(2.) THE adjudicating authority by its final order dated 09.05.2000 confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,71,177/ - for clandestine removal of goods and a sum of Rs. 10,88,498/ - on account of undervaluation. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/ - on Respondent No. 1 Under Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules. However, a penalty in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - was imposed on Respondent No. 2 to 7 Under Rule 209A of the said Rules. The Commissioner also ordered for confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of the Respondent No. 1 Under Rule 173Q (2) of the Rules with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. This order -in -original passed by the Commissioner was challenged in appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT by the impugned order dated 04.03.2005 has allowed both the appeals filed by the Respondent No. 1 and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. This is how the Revenue is before this Court by way of these appeals challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT.
(3.) INSOFAR as the issue of clandestine removal of goods by Respondent No. 1 is concerned, we find that on the statement of Respondent No. 5 given earlier, the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings accepting the explanation furnished. In view thereof, the CESTAT has held that there could not have been second show cause notice on the same cause of action. In this behalf we do not find any error in the order passed by the CESTAT.;