Shri Ajay Gupta vs Cce, Delhi-Ii

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.135/CE/D-II/13 dt.16.7.13 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-II)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 05.2.2015

For Approval & signature:

Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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 would 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 Department Authorities? Yes

Shri Ajay Gupta Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Delhi-II Respondent

Appearance

Shri V.R.Sethi, Advocate- for the appellant

Shri Devender Singh A.R. - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.50339/2015

Per Ashok Jindal :

A short issue involved in this matter is whether penalty under Rule 26 on the appellant imposable even the main appellant has paid the entire amount of duty alongwith interest and also paid 25% of duty as penalty within the stipulated time as per section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or not.

2. This issue has came up before the Tribunal in Appeal No.E/59966/13 and E/59967/13 wherein it has been held that in such situation, the proceedings in the show cause notice against the main appellant and co-appellant come to an end. In the light of decision of Jay Prakash Agarwal, I hold that as the main appellant has paid the entire amount of duty alongwith interest and also paid 25% of duty as penalty within the stipulated time as per section 11A (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore the proceedings in the show cause notice against the co-appellant stands concluded.

3. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(dictated & pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

mk

1