ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of CEAs No.158, 159, 168, 174, 176, 193, 209, 211 and 212 of 2010 as it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that questions of law involved in all these appeals are identical.
(2.) CEA No.158 of 2010 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice? ii) Whether penalty under Rule 25 can be imposed by invoking ingredients of Rule 26? iii) Whether penalty prior to March, 2007 can be imposed upon a dealer when specific provision was inserted in Rule 26 w.e.f. 01.03.2007? iv) Whether penalty under Rule 25(1) (b) and 25(1)(d) can be imposed upon a dealer? v) Whether it is justified to impose penalty equivalent to the amount of Cenvat Credit when the same amount of penalty has been imposed upon the user of credit? Learned counsel for the appellant state that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by order of this Court passed today in CEA No.7 of 2010 M/s Vee Kay Enterprises, Faridabad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
(3.) EVEN though we have not issued notice in these appeals but having regard to the fact that the matter is covered and is only to be remanded to the Tribunal for passing an appropriate order on the issue of quantum of penalty, we dispose of these appeals in the terms of above order. It is, however, made clear that if the respondent is aggrieved by this order, it can approach this Court.;