M/S. Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 57693 of 2013-Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a statutory rule prescribes a general penalty for breach of the Central Excise Rules and specifies only a maximum amount, with no minimum, the adjudicating or appellate authority may impose, for each contravention, any sum up to that maximum, and the penalty is not confined to a single amount irrespective of the number of contraventions; accordingly, a penalty may be reduced to an aggregate figure fixed by applying the maximum per contravention for each distinct rule breached.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 12-CE/APPL/GZB/2013 dated 11/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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?
M/s. Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
& ST, Ghaziabad
Appearance:
Shri Manjit Singh, consultant for the Appellants
Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 25.06.2015
Date of decision : 03.07.2015
ORDER NO. FO/ 52101 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the penalty of Rs.15,000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of Rule 12(2A) (a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for three times and penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/- under Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of Rule 9A (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on three occasions and Rule 9 A(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 36 occasions.
2. Learned Counsel submits that for each contravention separate penalty cannot be imposed. As per Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. general penalty can be imposed on breach of these Rules. As per the show cause notice, the appellant has breached Rule 12(2A) (a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 9A (1) and Rule 9 A(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore for contravention of each Rule maximum penalty of Rs.5000/- can be imposed on the appellant.
3. On the other hand, learned AR submits that it is as per decision of ITC Ltd. [1994 (72) ELT 315 (Tri)] for breach of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules penalty can be imposed for each contravention. Therefore impugned order does not require any interference by this Tribunal.
4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
5. On perusal of the record, I find that Rule 27 of Central excise Rules, 2002 prescribe maximum penalty of Rs.5000/-. Therefore there is no limit for imposing penalty on lower side. In these circumstances, I restrict the penalty for contravention of each Rule for several occasions up to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
6. In these terms, penalty on the appellant is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) i.e. Rs. 5000/- for contravention of Rule 9A(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, Rs. 5000/- for contravention of Rule 9A (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rs. 5000/- for contravention of Rule 12 (2A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
6. With these terms, the appeals are disposed of.
(Pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2015)
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
3
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