(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant for some time, we notice that a common question came to be framed by this Court in the present tax appeal and other two Tax Appeals No.533 and 534 of 2006, which reads as under :
"Whether for imposing penalty under Rule 209A goods are required to be confiscated or it is proved that goods were liable for confiscation, the penalty can be imposed under Rule 209A or not?"
2. We, however, find that in the present tax appeal, the TAXAP/532/2006 2/2 ORDER question involved is not of the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but Rule 173Q(1) of the said Rules. Accordingly, for the purpose of Tax Appeal No.532 of 2006, we re-frame the question of law as under:
"Whether it is necessary for a manufacturer to be registered for imposing penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting penalty on such basis?"
Stand over to 5th September, 2012.
[AKIL KURESHI, J.] [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*