Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Chandigarh-I vs S.C. Johnson Products (P) Ltd on 1 July, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017 COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. E/57198/2013 [SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 35-CE-APPL-CHD-I-2013 dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh-I] Date of hearing/decision: 01.07.2016 For approval and 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 C.C.E., Chandigarh-I : Appellant VS S.C. Johnson Products (P) Ltd. : Respondent
Appearance Shri Vijay Gupta, Ld. A.R. for the Appellant Shri Arun Pathak, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. 60865/2016 Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty from Rs. 31,12,929/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent has also filed an appeal against the impugned order, wherein demand of duty alongwith interest was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed. The said was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/50846/2016- SMB dated 22.02.2016 allowed their appeal by setting aside the impugned order demanding of duty and imposing penalty on them. Therefore, revenues appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel and perused the order of this Tribunal mentioned herein above, wherein the demand confirmed in the impugned order has already been set aside. In these circumstances, revenues appeal has no merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) RAS 2 1