Cce, Jaipur-I vs Hari Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/1575/2006-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal disposes of the appeal by following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which both sides accepted as deciding the point in the respondent's favour; the Tribunal records no reasoning of its own, so the only ratio is the rule adopted from that decision, which the text does not set out.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.48(MPM) CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
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, Jaipur-I Appellant
Vs.
Hari Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Mr.Pramod Kumar, JCDR
Present for the Respondent: Ms.Surabhi Sinha, Advocate
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 01/01/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50272/2015
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
Heard both the sides.
2. Both the sides agree that the only point of dispute in this case is as to whether for failure to discharge monthly duty liability under Rule 96 ZP by the due date, penalty equal to the duty payable would be imposable. In this case, the first appellate authority had reduced the penalty from Rs.1,40,302/- to Rs.4,000/-.
3. Since both the sides agree that the issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the respondent by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (260) ELT 343 (P & H). The Revenues appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0
2
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