Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Aurangabad vs Adinath Steel Re-Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd on 5 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/806/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JAK(92-93) 238, 239/09 dated 26.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
CCE Aurangabad
:
Appellants
Versus
Adinath Steel Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance Shri S.N. Vaidya, JDR for Appellants None for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 05.10.10 Date of Decision : 05.10.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has confirmed the duty demand and 25% of duty as penalty on the respondent firm and reduced the penalty on Shri Narender K. Pahade, Manager of the respondent firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. As per the appeal memo the appeal is filed only against Adinath Steel Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and no appeal has been filed against Shri Narender K. Pahade. In the order of the lower appellate authority the respondent was given benefit of proviso of 1 and 2 of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 to pay 25% of duty as penalty which the respondent has paid. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can give an option to the respondent to pay 25% of the duty as penalty or not? In fact, it has been seen by this Tribunal in several cases, the adjudicating authority has not given the option to pay 25% duty confirmed as penalty as proviso 1 and 2 of the Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. This Tribunal itself is giving an option to the assessee to pay 25% duty as confirmed as penalty within 30 days of the communication of the order of the Tribunal as held by the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del.). Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2