Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Nivaran Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd on 28 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/290/2006
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.4/2006 (M-II) dt. 31.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature :
Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities ?
Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai Appellant
Versus
Nivaran herbal products Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) For the Appellant
None For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing : 28-04-2014
Date of Decision : 28-04-2014
FINAL ORDER No.40272/2014
Per Pradip Kumar Das
Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs.12,18,630/- to Rs.1,00,000/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The Ld. Authorized Reprehensive on behalf of appellant-Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty and liability of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty.
3. None appears on behalf of the respondent.
4. After considering the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue and, on perusal of the records, I agree with the submission of Ld. A.R that in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to reduce the penalty. Accordingly, the impugned order in as far reduction of penalty is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh on imposition of penalty in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra).
5. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (PRADIP KUMAR DAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 3