M/S. Methods (India) Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.366/2003 CE dated 25/11/2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.67/2004 dated 22/03/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities? Yes

M/s. Methods (India) Pvt. Limited No. 5-A, KIADB Industrial Area, Hoskote, BANGAKORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562114 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE  560 001. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE  560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

M/s. Methods India Pvt. Ltd No.5a, KIADB Industrial Area, Hoskote BANGALORE - 562114 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Dayananda.K., Advocate 3rd Floor, Karuna Complex, No.337, Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore  560 003. For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 23/09/2015

Date of Decision: 23/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21992-21993 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Both the appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical.

2. Appellant is manufacturer of conveyors, belt conveyors and was discharging its duty liability in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, on two occasions there was a delay in deposit of duty by few days/months. The said duty was deposited by them subsequently along with interest.

2.1 In this scenario, Revenue initiated the proceedings against them for imposition of penalties. The same was imposed by the original adjudicating authority in terms of the provisions of Rule 8. In the first case, the penalty imposed was Rs.20,000/- which stands upheld by the Commissioner (A), hence the present appeal by the assessee. In the other case, the penalty imposed was to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- which was set aside by the Commissioner (A) and hence the present appeal by the Revenue.

3. The issues involved in these appeals is as to whether the delay in depositing duties in terms of Rule 8 would call for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 or not. The said issue stands discussed by the Tribunal in the case of W.H. Wintech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I: 2014 (314) E.L.T. 532 (Tri.-Del.) wherein by majority order it was held that contravention of Rule 8 would invoke penal action in terms of Rule 27.

4. In view of foregoing, we are of the view that this Rule 27 which is invokable in such a situation provides for imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/. As such, we reduce the penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- in appellants appeal and allowing the Revenues appeal by imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- in that case also. Both the appeals are disposed for in above manner. (Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK K ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3