Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Indofil Chemicals Co. Ltd on 1 April, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. E/3463/01 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 59/2000-Commr.VI dated 26.9.2000 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram (Vice President) and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Appellant Vs. Indofil Chemicals Co. Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri B.K. Singh, Authorised Representative (Jt.CDR), for appellant Shri H.C. Daruwala with Shri Rahul P. Jain, Advocates, for respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President and Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 1.4.2008 Date of Decision: 1.4.2008 ORDER NO.................................
Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed a duty demand of Rs.2,91,49,087/- together with penalty of Rs.3,00,00,000/- on the respondents herein as well as penalties of varying amounts on the officers of the respondent company. He dropped the proceedings for recovery of interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the dropping of proceedings for recovery of interest.
2. We have heard both sides and find that against the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty, the assessee and its officers had come up in appeal before the Tribunal by filing appeal Nos. E/59 to 62/01 which were disposed of vide order No. A/1301-1304/WZB/2005/C-III dated 30.6.2005 setting aside the demands and penalties. In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the Revenue's appeal seeking that interest should have been ordered to have been recovered. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the Revenue after upholding the impugned order.
(Pronounced in Court) (A.K. Srivastava) Member (Technical) (Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President tvu 1 2