Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 12 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/158/2006
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 125/2005 (M-I) dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. 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 Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) for the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 12.3.2014 Date of Decision: 12.3.2014 Final Order No. 40213/2014 Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the imposition of penalty equivalent to duty demanded vide Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and interest under Section 11AB of the said Act were set aside.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the respondent had paid the entire duty liability even before issue of the show-cause notice and following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE 2003 (161) ELT 285 and other decisions, set aside the penalty and interest. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC) held that penalty under Section 11AC of the Act cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the duty was paid before issue of show-cause notice. It has to be examined whether the conditions of penal liability as mentioned in Section 11AC of the Act is applicable or not. In view of the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), it is appropriate that the matter should be re-examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh on merits after considering the various decisions on the issue including the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra). Needless to say that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing the order.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K. Das) Judicial Member Rex 2