Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Bangalore vs M/S. Ibex Gallgher (P) Ltd on 22 August, 2012

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench  Division Bench
Court  I

Date of Hearing:22/08/2012 
                                    		    Date of decision:22/08/2012

Appeal No.E/888/2006

(Arising out of Order-in-original No.17/2005 dt. 02/11/2005
 passed by CCE, Bangalore)


For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical)


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 their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?


CCE, Bangalore
..Appellant(s)

Vs.
M/s. Ibex Gallgher (P) Ltd.
..Respondent(s)

Appearance Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the appellant. Ms. Sandhya, Advocate for the respondent.

Coram:

Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] This appeal of the Department seeks imposition of penalty on the respondent under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner had not imposed any such penalty on the assessee even after confirming demand of duty of over Rs.1 crore against them. As against the demand of duty, the assessee had filed appeal No.E/132/2006 which was allowed along with two other appeals of the same assessee vide Final Order Nos.1268-1270/2008 dt. 21/10/2008 wherein it was held by this Bench that the commodity in question being an immovable property was not excisable. The learned Superintendent(AR) fairly submits that the Final Order ibid was accepted by the Department. If that be so, the question of imposing any penalty on the respondent does not arise. The present appeal, therefore, gets dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 2