Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Pee Iron & Steel Company (P) Ltd on 26 March, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 26/03/2015. DATE OF DECISION :26/03/2015. Excise Appeal No. 1927 of 2006 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 314/CE/CHD/2005 dated 30/08/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Versus M/s Pee Iron & Steel Company (P) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri Yashpal Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51031/2015 Dated : 26/03/2015 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The respondent are manufacturer of non-alloy MS Ingots and were operating under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There was delay in payment of duty by the due date on several occasions during 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 for which the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31/01/2005 besides demanding the duty not paid by the due date alongwith interest, also imposed penalty of equal amount. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30th August 2005 while setting aside the duty demand and interest on the ground the same has already been paid, reduced the penalty under Rule 96 ZO (3) for delay in payment of duty by the due date to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
2. None appeared for the respondent.
3. Heard Shri Yashpal Sharma, the learned DR. He fairly agrees that the issue involved in this case stands decided against the Department by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 343 (P&H), wherein the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3) providing for penalty equal to the duty payable in the cases of delay in payment of duty by the due date has been struck down as unconstitutional. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
3