M/S. Tamil Nadu Rolling Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.35/2006 (M-IV), dated 26.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Commissioner of
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal waived the penalty in view of the hardship caused by the long pendency of the litigation and the fact that the assessee had acted bona fide in relying on earlier High Court decisions favourable to it, and it declined to levy interest on the duty for the same reason, following the Delhi High Court's ratio in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU. Where an assessee has acted bona fide in reliance on High Court decisions taking a view favourable to it, and the revenue's liability has arisen only because of the prolonged pendency of litigation in another High Court that was not attributable to the assessee's fault, the duty may be confirmed while interest is waived and penalty is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.35/2006 (M-IV), dated 26.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s. TAMIL NADU ROLLING MILLS LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri S. Venkatachalam Adv.
For the Respondent Shri M. Rammohan Rao AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 30-01-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.40115/2015
Per D.N. Panda:
Learned Counsel says the matter of imposition of compounded levy was held in favour of assessee by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Gujarat High Court. But matters on the same subject was pending before Honble High Court of Madras. Before Honble Madras High Court Revenue succeeded. Such a long delay in settling the litigation has dragged the appellant to the levy of duty, interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Considering the hardship as aforesaid and also the age of the litigation, the penalty is waived and the appeal is allowed partly confirming the duty liability.
3. Learned counsel submits that in view of the travelling of the litigation for a long time, the debts payable to the Revenue is not for the valid reason attributable to the assessee who acted bonafide believing that the appellant is governed by the decision of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Gujarat, which came much earlier to the decision of the Honble Madras High Court. In such circumstances, following the ratio laid down by Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU reported in 2013 (297)E.L.T. 332 (Del.) there may not be levy of interest.
4. Prayer is allowed. The appeal is partly allowed confirming the duty demand and waiving the interest and penalty.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 06-02-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 30.01.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 04/02/2015
Fair Order Typing 06.02.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 09.02.2015
2 E/00724/2006
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