Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. Meerut I vs M/S. Garwali Rolling Mills (P) Ltd on 25 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Date of Hearing/decision: 25.11.2013
Appeal No. E/3037/2006 - EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.87-CE/MTR-I/2006 dt.21.06.06, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Meerut-I]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. Meerut I Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Garwali Rolling Mills (p) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. B.B.Sharma, AR - for the Appellants None- for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO:- 58419/2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:-
Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which, while confirming the duty of Rs.28,82,028/- in terms of the provisions to Rule 96ZP(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, he has reduced the penalty to Rs.3 Lakh under Rule 96ZP(3). The Revenue is seeking to enhance the penalty equivalent to the duty confirmed.
2. I find that the provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) stands held ultra virus in case of Honble Bansal Alloys & Metals PVt. LTd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2010(260) ELT- 343 (P&H) As such the Revenues appeal in respect of penalty under Rule 96ZP(3), praying for enhancement cannot be allowed. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Order dictated in the open court)
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial)
S.Kaur
1