Page 237 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR 283

C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 38/38/94-CX., dated 27-5-1994 .................................................................. [Para 49]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Authorized Repre-
sentative, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Justice Dilip Gupta, President]. - Central Excise Appeal No.
347 of 2007 has been filed by M/s. Pee Cee Soap & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (now Pee
Cee Cosma Sope Ltd.) [the Appellant] to assail the order dated 15 November,
2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [the Commissioner]
by which Central Excise duty demanded by the show cause notice dated 17 July,
2006 amounting to Rs. 9,32,35,179/- with Education Cess of Rs. 8,08,057/- not
paid by the Appellant on clearance of ‘Doctor’ brand ‘Laundry Soaps’ for the
period January, 2002 to February, 2006 has been confirmed. The order also con-
fiscates 1,11,366 Kg. of the aforesaid soap valued at Rs. 28,31,993/- that was
seized on 24 January, 2006 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [2002
Rules] with an option to the Appellant to redeem the confiscated goods on pay-
ment of redemption fine of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The order also seeks to impose a pen-
alty of Rs. 9,40,43,236/- upon the Appellant. It also directs the Appellant to pay
interest.
2. Central Excise Appeal No. 348 of 2007 has been filed by Anil Kumar
Jain, Factory Manager, to assail that part of the order dated 15 November, 2006
passed by Commissioner that imposes a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon him under
Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules.
3. Central Excise Appeal No. 349 of 2007 has been filed by Mahendra
Kumar Jain, Managing Director, to assail that portion of the order dated 15 No-
vember, 2006 passed by Commissioner that imposes a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs up-
on him under Rule 26 of 2002 Rules.
4. Central Excise Appeal No. 350 of 2007 has been filed by Anoop Kumar,
Authorised Signatory to assail that portion of the order dated 15 November, 2006
passed by the Commissioner by which a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs has been imposed
under Rule 26 of the 2002 Rules.
5. The aforesaid four appeals were earlier allowed by the Tribunal by
order dated 22 August, 2016 [2017 (345) E.L.T. 118 (Tri. - All.)]. However, the
Commissioner filed four Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court which were
disposed of on 1 July, 2019 [2019 (368) E.L.T. A153 (S.C.)]. The impugned order of
the Tribunal was set aside and the matters were relegated to the Tribunal for re-
consideration of the appeals afresh on merits. It was, however, made clear by the
Supreme Court that all the contentions available to the parties shall be decided
afresh by the Tribunal on merits in accordance with law. The relevant portion of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid four Civil Appeals is repro-
duced below :-
“4. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 23rd
August, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tri-
bunal, Regional Bench Allahabad in final order Nos. A/70786-70789/2016-
Ex (DB) in Appeal Nos. E-347-350/2007-Ex (DB), whereby the decision of
the Commissioner has been reversed and appeals preferred by the assessee
came to be allowed.
5. The sole grievance made in these appeals, which needs consideration, is
that, the Appellate Tribunal has founded its decision on the basis of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  253