Cce, Chandigarh-I vs M/S.Sandal Travels Pvt.Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.ST/806/2009-CU (DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a penalty under section 78 has been imposed, the imposition of a further penalty under section 76 is not justified on the same facts, even though during the relevant period the two penalties were not mutually exclusive in law, because the imposition of penalty under section 78 may be taken into account in deciding whether to levy penalty under section 76, as laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Hearing/Order: 06.08.2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.303/CE/CHD/2009 dated 8.09.2009 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh)
Honble Mr.R.K.Singh, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? no 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? no 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? yes
CCE, Chandigarh-I Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sandal Travels Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Govind Dixit, DR
Present for the Respondent: None
Coram: Honble Mr.R.K.Singh, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.52641/2015
PER: R.K.SINGH
Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 8.9.2009 which dropped the penalty under section 76 on the ground that the penalty under section 78 has already been imposed.
2. The Revenue argued that penalty under sections 76 and 78 were not exclusive during the relevant period and cited the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of CCE vs. Krishna Poduval-2006 (1) STR 185 (Kerala).
3. Nobody was present on behalf of the respondent when the case was taken up for hearing.
4. We have considered the contention of Revenue. It is a fact that during the relevant period penalties under sections 76 and 78 were not mutually exclusive and therefore both penalties could be imposed simultaneously. We find that the respondent falls within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE vs. First Flight Courier Ltd.-2011 (22) STR 622 (P&H) has clearly observed that where penalty under section 78 has been imposed, penalty under section 76 may not be justified. Again in the case of Pannu Property Dealers -2011 (24) STR 0173 (P & H), Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that even if technically penalties under sections 76 and 78 are not mutually exclusive, imposition of penalty under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76. In the light of the said judgement of the jurisdictional High Court, we do not find sufficient ground for sustaining Revenues appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
(SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) (R.K.SINGH)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
mk
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free