RAMAN GANDHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
Referred Judgements :-
CCE,RAIPUR V. JAY PRAKASH AGARWAL
COMMISSIONER V. ANAND AGRAWAL
CCE,RAIPUR V. DEEPAK PATEL
CCE,RAIPUR V. JAY AMBEY METAL WORKS PVT. LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
ASHOK JINDAL -
(1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty thereon under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
(2.)The facts of the case are that the main party namely M/s. Sadbhavana Enterprises paid the amount of duty in question along with interest and 25 per cent of duty as penalty within a period of 30 days of issuing of the show cause notice. A Penalty of Rs. 15,000/ - was imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant is in appeal against the order of imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002.
The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case a common show cause notice was issued to the appellant as well as the M/s. Sadbhavana Enterprises and as per the provisions to Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1994 which states that if duty, interest and 25 per cent penalty equivalent to duty has been paid by the main party, then proceedings against all the parties comes to an end. Therefore, the penalty on the appellant is not imposable. She also relied on the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. , dated 26 -7 -2006. She also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Jay Prakash Agarwal - : 2013 (297) E.L.T. 554 (Tri. Del.), CCE, Raipur v. Jay Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. - : 2013 (295) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. - Del), CCE, Raipur v. Abir Steel Rolling Mills - : 2013 (296) E.L.T. 90 (Tri. - Del.) and CCE, Raipur v. Deepak Patel - : 2013 (298) E.L.T. 583 (Tri. Delhi). Therefore, she prayed that penalty imposed on the appellant to be set aside.
(3.)ON the other hand, the ld. AR submits that the separate show cause notice has been issued to the appellant and separate proceeding has been initiated against the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, the proviso of Section 11A(2) are not applicable to the facts of this case. To support this contention he relied in the case of Commissioner v. Anand Agrawal - : 2013 (288) E.L.T. 90 (Tribunal).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.