SHRI ANUP MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN Vs. CCE BHAVNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of clandestine removal of the goods by M/s Vidyaram Steel Re -rolling Mills. During the course of investigation and after issue of Show Cause Notice and before issue of adjudication order, the Appellant firm who had removed the goods clandestinely, discharged the duty liability, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty involved. Ld. Counsel on behalf the Appellant, submits that the Appellant is an employee of the firm and penalty of Rs. 30,000/ - has been imposed upon him. He submits that according to the provisions of Section 11A (1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, once the person who is liable to pay duty, discharges the liability to duty, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% before issue of adjudication order, the proceedings against the person responsible for paying duty and all others are deemed to have been concluded. Under these circumstances, he submits that the penalty imposed on the Appellant cannot be sustained and seeks that instead of deciding the Stay Petition, the appeal itself may be decided.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and the submissions made by the ld. Counsel as reproduced above, I find that in this case, the appeal itself can be decided. Accordingly, the requirement of pre -deposit is waived and the appeal taken up for final disposal. Section 11A (1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, if such person (the person liable to pay duty) has paid duty in full together with interest and penalty under sub -section (1A), the proceedings in respect of such person and the other persons to whom the notices are served under sub -section 1 shall without prejudice the provisions of Sections 9, 9A and 9AA be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein. In view of the legal provisions, the adjudication order and the Order -in -Original cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the Appellant.