M/S. Lear Automotive India P. Ltd vs C.C.E & S.T. Delhi-Iv

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal21 August 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/2896, 3269/2006-EX(DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the demand against the principal assessee has been set aside, a penalty imposed on co-noticees that is consequential upon that demand cannot be sustained, since no penalty is imposable where there is no underlying demand against the principal party.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIAppeal No. E/2896, 3269/2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/KK/Adjn/2006-07 dated 21.04.2006 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Faridabad].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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?

Shri. H.S. Banga,

M/s. Lear Automotive India P. Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E & S.T. Delhi-IV .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Rahul Tangri, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri R.K. Grover, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 21.08.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52749-52750/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Heard the parties.

2. These appeals are arising from the order in original no. 1/KKJ/Adjudication/2006-07 dated 21.04.2006. In the said impugned order the demand was confirmed against M/s. SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd., co-noticee of the appellants for demanding duty and imposition of penalty on the appellants before us along with Shri Deepak Adlakha, Head Operations, M/s. SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd.

3. As the demand against M/s. SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. has been set aside by this Tribunal in Central Excise Appeal no. 2490-2091/2006 by FO No. 55440-55441/2013 dated 17.01.2013 and the penalties imposed on the appellants is consequential to the demand confirmed against M/s. SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, as there is no demand against M/s. SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. consequently, penalty on the appellants is not imposable.

4. With these terms, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/2896, 3269/2006-EX(DB)

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