Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Nicco Corporation Ltd vs Cce-Kol-Iii on 13 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Stay Petition No.E/STAY/448/2010
&
Appeal No.E/389/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.25/Kol-III/10 dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.NICCO Corporation Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-Kol-III
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri A.D.Ray, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri R.K.Chakraborty, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the Revenue (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing/Decision :- 13.08.2010 Date of Pronouncement :- 13.08.2010 ORDER NO.
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Applicant filed this Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) (Rs.5,000/- for each default). The proper officer asked the Applicants to file annual financial information statement as required under Rule 12(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Applicants failed to do so. Hence the penalty was imposed.
2. The contention of Applicant is that the submission of annual financial information statement was introduced by Notification No.35/2004-CE(NT) dated 01.11.2004 therefore for the year 2003-04 the Applicants are not liable for any penalty for non-submission of annual financial information statement. Applicants also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commisisoner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises 2007 (213) ELT 52 (Tri.-Ahmd.).
3. The contention of Revenue is that Applicants not only for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 had not filed the annual financial information statement in fact even thereafter also had not been supplying the same to the proper officer and this fact is also admitted by the Appellant during argument. In these circumstances the contention is that penalty is rightly imposed.
4. I find that in this case annual financial information statement is required to be filed by the Applicant and Appellant had not filed the same during the period in question which is subject matter of the present Appeal and subsequently also. In these circumstances the Appeal is being taken up for hearing along with the Stay Petition. The Applicant relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (supra). In this case the penalty for not filing the annual financial information statement for the year 2003-04 was set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) and the same is upheld by the Tribunal on the ground that requirement for filing the statement was introduced w.e.f. 01.11.2004. In view of this fact and circumstances the penalty was set aside. The facts of the present case are different as Appellant had not filed the statement for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and thereafter also even on the asking of the Revenue. The Appellant during the arguments admitted that for subsequent years also Appellants are paying the penalties as imposed by the Revenue. In these circumstances as Appellant had not filed the annual financial information statement and also not willing to file I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed. Stay Petition is also dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) Sd/ (S.S.KANG) VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.E/389/10