C.C.& C.E., Meerut Ii vs Eureka Forbes Ltd

Arising out of the order in original No.13/Commr/MRT-II/2005 dated 27.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise , Meerut II.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Technical Member

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.& C.E., Meerut II . Appellant

Vs.

Eureka Forbes Ltd. .. Respondent

Appearance:

Present Shri R.K. Gupta, A.R. for the Appellant/Revenue

Present Shri Anurag Kapur, Advocate for the respondent/assessee

Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Technical Member

Final Order No. 52164/2015

Per Justice G. Raghuram:

Heard the ld. A.R. for the appellant/Revenue and Shri Anurag Kapur, ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee.

2. The appeal is preferred by Revenue against the adjudication order dated 27.7.2005 by any reference No.13/Commr/MRT-II/2005 . This order confirmed a differential Excise Duty demand of Rs.56,51,360/- along with interest at the appropriate rate and penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the assessees unit, under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, for having suppressed relevant facts from the Government. Appeal by Revenue is confined to the grievance that the adjudicating authority failed to confirm levy of penalty amount of an amount equivalent to the differential duty demand confirmed and instead confirmed lesser amount of Rs.10 lakhs, as specified in the impugned order.

3. Against the same adjudication order, the assessee preferred an appeal in Excise Appeal No.809/2012-Ex(BR.) dated 4.7.2012 to this Tribunal. By the Final Order dated 4.7.2012 and for the reasons recorded therein, the Tribunal allowed the assessees appeal and set aside the adjudication order. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision after duly considering the assessees defence and permitting the assessee to marshall evidence in its support.

3. Since the very adjudication order dated 27.7.2005 stands effaced by the Final Order dated 4.7.2012 in Excise Appeal No.3872/2005, the present appeal by Revenue against imposition of penalty set out in the order dated 27.7.2005, does not survive for adjudication.

4. In view of the order of this Tribunal dated 4.7.2012, this appeal by Revenue has become infructuous and is so dismissed. No costs.

andl

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(H.K. Thakur)

Technical Member

scd/

1