- (1.) On the allegation that between May, 1995 and June, 1998, the assessee appellant had removed certain goods in a clandestine manner in order to avoid customs duty on the goods produced by it, a proceeding was initiated under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, in which penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer, which was affirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals. On appeal to the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) the Learned Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, however, without giving reasons to support its findings upholding the imposition of penalty under section 11AC but then reduced the amount from Rs. 16,13,237/- to Rs. 2 Lac only on the ground that the penalty appeared to be excessive considering all-aspects of the case. The grounds:
(2.) This appeal was admitted before this Court under section 35G of the Central Excise Act on the following grounds: i) Whether the unreasoned order read with the facts and pointes of law indicates non-application of mind and non-consideration of materials on evidence produced before the Authority and as such, are perverse? ii) Whether any concession given by a Lawyer on a point of law can be binding on its clients? iii) Whether penalty under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is leviable in respect of an alleged act which took place prior to the introduction and/or insertion of the said section 11AC, that is. with effect from 28th September, 1996? The appearance:
(3.) Elaborate argument has been made by Mr. Dutta. Though information was sent to the learned counsel for the respondent department, he did not appear on the earlier date. Today we are informed that Mr. Dutta's clerk has informed the clerk of the learned Advocate-on-record for the respondent. The matter is appearing in the list continuously and no one is appearing today to represent the respondent. Whether a concession by lawyer binds his client:;