M/S.Tata Steel Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/55831/2014 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is reduced to 20% of the amount imposed where the issue and the circumstances are identical to those already decided by this Tribunal in earlier final orders reducing the penalty to 20%, and the appellants do not contest the merits of the duty demand; the earlier decisions are followed on the basis that the same stand should be taken in the present case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-256 to 263-14-15 dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]
Excise Appeal No.E/55839/2014 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-241 to 245-14-15 dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]
M/s.Tata Steel Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
Excise Appeal No.E/55842/2014 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-256 to 263-14-15 dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]
M/s.Neepaz Steels India (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?
Present for the Appellant : Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, DR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 18.09.2015
Final ORDER NO. ..
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 against the appellants is the subject matter of the present dispute.
2. Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are not contesting the merits of the case and the prayer in all these appeals are with regard to reduction in the quantum of penalty amount.
3. In context with reduction of the penalty, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Adhunik Steel Ltd./ Tata Steel Ltd. (Final Order Nos. 52654-52655/2014 dated 01.07.2014) and Tata Steel Ltd./Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd. (Final Order No. a-51713-51717/2015-SM (BR) dated 22.05.2015 and in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. vs CCE Chandigarh (Final Order No. A/52825/2015-SM(BR) dated 08.09.2015).
4. Per contra, Sh. G.R. Singh the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
6. I find that in the above referred decisions, this Tribunal has taken the view that the appellants were liable to pay penalty and considering the circumstances of the case has reduced the quantum of penalty to 20%. Since the issue involved and decided in the aforementioned cases is identical to the facts of the cases in hand, I am of the view that the stand already taken earlier should be taken in this case also. Thus, the penalty imposed in the adjudication orders and subsequently confirmed in the impugned orders are modified to the extent of reducing the same to 20%. The appeals are partly allowed.
(Operative part pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 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