Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Patiala Castings Pvt. Limited on 26 November, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
R.K. PURAM, W.B. NO.2, PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI, COURT NO.I
Excise Appeal No. 739 of 2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 999/CE/CHD/06 dated 24.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh]
Date of Hearing/Decision : 26.11.2008
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
M/s Patiala Castings Pvt. Limited Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. R.K. Verma, DR for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President O r d e r Per Jyoti Balasundaram:
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty on the respondents herein who paid duty calculated on the shortage of final products detected in their factory, alongwith 25% penalty prior to the issue of the show cause notice, to Rs. 5,000/-. According to the Department, the first proviso to Section 11AC provides that where such duty as determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A, and the interest payable thereon under section 11AB, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officers determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be 25% of the duty so determined. Since the respondents had already paid the duty together with 25% penalty, it is the DRs contention that the penalty of 25% was correct as per the legal provision and could not and should not have been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice and hence I heard the learned DR for the appellant and perused the record. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned DR in the light of the statutory provision. I, therefore, set aside the reduction of the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- holding that the payment of Rs. 25,897/- of penalty alongwith the duty calculated on the shortage was correct, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. [Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] [Jyoti Balasundaram] Vice President [Pant]