Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S A R Shipping on 27 July, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017 Single Member Bench COURT NO.1 Excise Appeal No. C/39/2016-SM [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.Asr-Custom-Prv-App-218-225-15-16 dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh] Date of Hearing/Decision: 27.07.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Ludhiana Appellant Vs. M/s A R Shipping Respondent
Appearance Shri Satyapal, AR- for the appellant Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61010/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein no penalty has been imposed on the respondent.
2. The Ld. AR submits that this matter is not covered by the litigation policy, as this matter involves a question of law for imposition of penalty.
3. The facts of the case are that the importer namely M/s Matex International imported one consignment of this automotive batteries and paid duty on transaction value instead of paying duty as per provisions of section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Customs Act. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the importer as well as against the respondent. Both the authorities below confirmed demand of duty against the importer and refrain from imposing penalty on the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order for non-imposition of penalty on the respondent, the revenue is in appeal contesting that the matter involves in question of law and is not covered by the litigation policy.
3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
4. The ld. AR was specifically asked about the question of law involved in the matter for non imposition of penalty. The Ld. AR submits that the respondent has violated the provisions Customs Brokers Licence Regulation 2014, which is required to decide of this Court. As in this case both the authorities below refrained from imposing penalty on the respondent wherein imports have been made by third party. In that circumstance, I do not find any question of law involved in this case for the consideration whether the respondent is required to be penalised or not.
5. As both the authorities below have refrained from imposing penalty therefore, no question of law is involved with regard to Customs Act, 1962 for imposing penalty on the respondent. In that circumstance, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The same is upheld and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1