Ramson Rigid Pvc Pipes vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 155/2008 dated 22/09/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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

Ramson Rigid PVC Pipes Tallur, N.H.17, Kundapur Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore 7th Floor, Trade Centre, Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore  575 003 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 21/01/2015 Date of Decision: 21/01/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20116 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However after taking note of the fact that this is the third time appeal is being called and on the earlier occasions also nobody was present and also taking note of the fact that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the very same impugned order had been considered by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 445/2010 dated 05.02.2010, I take up the appeal for final decision. In this case, appellant is in appeal against the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) imposed on them. Revenue has challenged this order on the ground that the mandatory penalty should have been imposed and reduction of penalty by the Commissioner was not correct. Appellant had not contested the duty and the interest which had already been paid. In the Final Order dated 05.02.2010, while considering the appeal filed by the Revenue, there was a clear observation as under:

I find that in the instant case, there was only a delay in payment of duty on the part of the respondents. It had no intention to evade payment of duty due. It had also discharged the duty liability along with applicable interest before the issue of show-cause notice. In the circumstances, I find that a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is fair and appropriate. Since the Tribunal has already taken a view that the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed is fair and appropriate, the appeal filed by the assessee has no merits and is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss