M/S.Northern Udyog Pvt.Ltd vs C.C.E., & S.T., Chandigarh
- CitationAppeal No. E/55848/2014-EX(SM),
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty rests on the proposition that where the same investigation gives rise to appeals raising the same allegation, and the Tribunal has already reduced the penalty in an earlier decision on that allegation, the same reduction is to be applied to the penalty in the later appeal, absent any ground for taking a different view. Where the appellant confines its challenge to the quantum of penalty and advances no argument on the merits, the Tribunal will modify the penalty to the proportion fixed in the earlier decision (here, 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority), and will allow the appeal in part to that extent.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-241-245 -14-15 dt.26.8.14 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Chandigarh)
Date of Hearing: 18.09.2015
Date of Order: 28.09.2015
For approval & Signature:
Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? yes
M/s.Northern Udyog Pvt.Ltd. Appellant.
Vs.
C.C.E., & S.T., Chandigarh Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri Kamaljit Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri M.R.Sharma, AR
Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.52979/2015
Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that he is confining his arguments to the issue of imposition of penalty alone. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal on similar issue has reduced the penalty to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. To substantiate his contention, the Learned Counsel produced the copy of Final Order No. A/51713-51717/2015-SM (BR) dated 22.5.2015. The DR conceded that present appeals are also appeals from the same investigation, were the allegation was that invoices were issued without actually supplying the goods. The Tribunal in the earlier case, by the above stated Final Order has taken a view of reducing the penalty. I do not find any ground to take a different view. Therefore, the penalty imposed upon the appellant in the above appeals is reduced to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. No other argument on merits of the case was advanced on behalf of appellant.
2. In the result the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed against appellants to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. The appeal is allowed in part in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the open court on 28.09.2015)
(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Judicial)
mk
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