Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Siddh Industries

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal16 April 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/450/2007-DB

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the demand of duty on which a penalty is founded has been set aside in the assessee's own appeal, a penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed; penalty is dependent on a sustained duty demand, and the Revenue's appeal against the non-imposition of such penalty therefore cannot succeed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/450/2007-DB [Arising out of OIO No.21-24/COMMR/2008, dt.06.07.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II Appellant

M/s Siddh Industries Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative For Respondent: None

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:16.04.2015

Order No. A/10334 / 2015, dt.16.04.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II whereby the penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC was not imposed.

2. None appears on behalf of the Respondents.

3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondents also filed appeal against the demand of duty in the same impugned order before the Tribunal. By Final Order No.A/10605/WZB/AHD/2012, dt.01.04.2013, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. As the demand of duty is set aside, penalty cannot be imposed.

4. In view of that, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 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