Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Laxmi Engineering Works, Udaipur vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 3 July, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Excise Appeal No.E/1611/2005
[Arising out of O-I-A No.113 (RM) CE/JPR-II/2005 dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CCE, Jaipur-II].
M/s.Laxmi Engineering Works, Udaipur Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : None
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Mathur, DR
Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.07.2013
Final ORDER NO. 56995/2013 DATED: 03.07.2013
PER: D.N.PANDA
None present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application. This appeal is rolling on board after the stay order was passed on 27.6.2005. On several occasions absence of the appellant has been noticed by Tribunal and recorded. While stay order was passed on 27.6.05, Tribunal noticed that the application for waiver of per-deposit related only to penalty. Accordingly, considering that the duty element was deposited and Rs.40,000/- was deposited towards penalty, the balance amount of pre-deposit was waived during pendency of the appeal.
2. This appeal is against Order No.113 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), issued on 18.5.05. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that appeal of this appellant was only before him and all other appellant had no remedy before him as recorded in para 1 to 3 of his order. In para 4, he has examined the case of the appellant. He categorically recorded that there was no dispute relating to duty by the appellant. That was confirmed. So far as the penalty under section 11AC is concerned he carefully examined in para 5 of his order and found that no penalty to the extent of Rs.9,000/- was leviable, since section 11AC came into force from 28.09.1996. Granting concession of penalty of Rs.9,000/-, as to no leviability, he redetermined the penalty of Rs.1,96,508/- in terms of para 5 of the order in appeal. He has also leniently considered that once penalty under section 11AC is imposed no further penalty under rule 173 Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 was called for. With the aforesaid observation and decision, he disposed the appeal.
3. In view of the very reasoned and speaking order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as above describing how he exercised his jurisdiction confining the appeal decision to the present appellant only and also describing how he applied his mind to grant appropriate concession to the appellant in respect of penalty under section 11AC, there is no further scope to intervene to his decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(RAKESH KUMAR) (D.N.PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita 3 3 Excise Appeal No.E/1611/2005