Cce, Delhi-I vs M/S. Sinhal Metal Industries Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/51869/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a provision of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been declared ultra vires by a High Court, and the duty demand and penalty in the present case were founded on that provision, no proceedings founded on it can survive, and the appeal against the reduction of penalty on that basis must be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.219-220/CE/DLH/2013 dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I, New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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?
CCE, Delhi-I Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Sinhal Metal Industries Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant :Shri M.S. Negi, DR
Present for the Respondent: Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53294/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, wherein penalty imposed in the adjudication order has been reduced.
2. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in the present case relates to applicability of the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise, Rules, 2002. The ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the said provisions under the statute has been declared ultra vires by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). He also relies on the final order No. A/51595/2015 SM BR dated 5/5/2015 of this Bench of the Tribunal, wherein placing reliance on the said judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in an identical case, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. Considering the fact that Rule 8 (3A) of the Rules has been declared ultra vires and the said rule has been applied for confirmation of the duty demand and for imposition of penalty in the present case, I am of the view that no proceedings shall survive upon declaration of the said rule as ultra vires.
4. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order in reducing the quantum of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order. Thus, the appeal is devoid of any merits, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 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