M/S Tuton Pharmaceuticals vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No. : E/1318/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of penalty is not warranted where the issue in the case has been decided against the assessee by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal, and the assessee's identical issue in its own case was previously decided in its favour by dropping the penalty on the strength of that Larger Bench decision; the penalty therefore cannot survive where the governing question has been settled by a Larger Bench.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-155/2007-AHD-II-CE/RAJU/COMMR-A- dated 1.11.2007 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-II]
1. M/s Tuton Pharmaceuticals - Appellant(s)
2. Commissioner of Central Excise-
AHMEDABAD-II
Vs
1. Commissioner of Central Excise-
AHMEDABAD-II - Respondent (s) 2. M/s Tuton Pharmaceuticals
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate
For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 2/7/2015
ORDER No. A/10988-10989/2015 dtd 2/7/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Revenue also filed appeal E/169/2008 against the impugned order to the extent the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty.
2. As we are taking the appeal filed by the assessee, we direct the appeal of the Revenue would be treated as listed in the days list. Accordingly, we take-up for hearing both the appeals filed by the Assessee and the Revenue.
3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.
4. The Advocate fairly submits that the issue involved in this case is against the Assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Indica Laboratories P Ltd vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2007(213) ELT.20(Tri. Ahmd)]. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that the Tribunal on the identical issue in their own case vide Final Order No A/3161-3163/WZB/Ahd/07 dated 18.10.2007 dropped the penalty as the matter was decided by the Larger Bench.
5. In view of the above discussions, we upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). As the issue was decided by the Larger Bench, imposition of penalty is not warranted. Hence, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Assessee are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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