M/S. Unilec Industries vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iv
- CitationAppeal No. E/56636/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's penalty under Rule 27 rests on the principle that where a provision of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is held ultra vires by the High Court, it cannot found a penalty, and that, for a contravention of the Rules for which a penalty is not otherwise prescribed, the penalty is to be imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 alone, following the High Court's ruling in the cited decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 118/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2012 dated 04.01.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Faridabad].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri 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. Unilec Industries .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. Delhi-IV .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 13.05.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51615/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The short issue involved in the matter is that whether the penalty can be imposed on the appellant for contravention of Rule 8(3)(A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 or not.
2. Heard the parties.
3. In the case of Indsure Global Vs. CCE 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj) the Honble High Court of Gujarat held that provision of Rule 8(3)(a) of Central Excise Rules 2002 are ultra vires and in the case of Saurushtra Consent Ltd. Vs. CCE-2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj) the Honble High Court further held that for contravention of Rules penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 only. As applicant has contravened the provision of Rule 8(3)(A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 ibid therefore, following the decision in the case of Saurushtra Consent Ltd. I impose a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Rule 27 ibid on the appellant.
4. With these terms appeal is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/56636/2013-EX(SM)
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