Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Ravindra Solvent Oils Pvt. Ltd on 25 April, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Stay & Appeal No: E/Stay/557/2007 in E/850/2007 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 02/2007 (G) CE dated 2.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Guntur.) 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? Yes 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Guntur. (Represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vijayawada.) Appellant Vs. M/s. Ravindra Solvent Oils Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Mrs. Sudha Koka, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the Revenue.
Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM DR. S.L. PEERAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. T. K. JAYARAMAN, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 25.04.2008 Date of decision: 25.04.2008 FINAL ORDER No._______________________2008 STAY ORDER No._______________________2008 Per Dr. S. L. Peeran (Oral) The stay application and appeal are taken up together in this Revenue appeal, as the partys appeal against the Order-in-Original No.25/2005 dated 28.12.2005 has been allowed by this Bench by Final Order No.1987/2006 dated 28.11.2006. The Order-in-Original was appealed by both the Revenue and the party before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) on the same issue decided the matter by two separate orders. The Revenue appeal is now coming up for consideration against the Commissioner (A) dropping the penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The party had filed an appeal before Tribunal on confirmation of demands which was affirmed by Order-in-Appeal No.60/2006 (G) CE dated 10.4.2006 and the Tribunal had set aside the demands.
2. The learned Counsel submits that since the demands itself has been set aside by the Tribunal by Final Order No.1987/2006 dated 28.11.2006, therefore, there is no question of imposition of penalty. Hence, he submits that this appeal does not survive for consideration.
3. The learned SDR submits that the Revenue is aggrieved with non-imposition of penalty and hence, this appeal has been filed. The learned SDR submits that the Final Order No.1987/2006 dated 28.11.2006 is appealed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
3.1 The learned Counsel submits that there is no stay of operation of the Tribunals order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He prays for dismissal of the stay application and Revenue appeal.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We note that the Original Authority had affirmed duty and had not imposed penalty. There were appeals both of Revenue as well as partys before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) disposed of the matter by two separate orders. He confirmed the duty but affirmed the Original Authoritys order in not imposing penalty. The party was aggrieved with the confirmation of demands and the Tribunal by Final Order No.1987/2006 dated 28.11.2006 has set aside the demands. It follows that once the demands are set aside, the question of imposing penalty as sought by the Revenue in this appeal does not arise. The Original Authority has considered the reasons for not imposing penalty which are noted in the order. The Commissioner (A) was impressed with his findings and therefore, did not impose penalty. Since the demands have been set aside by the Tribunal, therefore, the question of considering Revenues appeal for imposition penalty does not arise. Therefore, the Stay Application and Appeal are dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (T.K. JAYARAMAN) Member (T) (S.L.PEERAN) Member (J) //rv//