Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise& ... vs Shree Shantinath Silk ... on 3 February, 2015
O/TAXAP/1636/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1636 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS, SURAT-
I....Appellant(s)
Versus
SHREE SHANTINATH SILK INDUSTRIES....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RUJUTA R.OZA FOR MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/1636/2007 JUDGMENT
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 03/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Ms.Rujuta R.Oza, learned advocate for Mr.R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant.
2. While admitting this appeal on 19.02.2009, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case,the Tribunal is justified in reducing the amount of penalty from Rs.3,00,000/ to Rs.25,000/ imposed under Rule 95ZQ[5] read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 though prescribed under the said provisions is mandatory?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in reducing the mandatory amount of penalty leviable equivalent to the amount of duty demanded and confirmed under Rule 96ZQ[5][ii] of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?"
3. In this Tax Appeal, excise duty of Rs.3 lakhs was imposed upon the respondent and the goods were seized with an option to the respondent to redeem the goods on payment of Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/1636/2007 JUDGMENT redemption fine of Rs.10,000/- and personal penalty of Rs.3 lakhs. The Tribunal has set aside personal penalty and reduced it from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.25,000/- and redemption fine from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/- which has been challenged by the revenue in this tax appeal.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS V. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2014(33) STR 124 (Guj) held that in view of instruction dated 17.8.2011, tax appeal below Rs.10 lakh is not maintainable and this instruction also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable. Accordingly, the questions of law posed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pathan Page 3 of 3