Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Cce vs G.E. Power Controls (P) Ltd. on 28 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(177)ELT556(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.12/2001 (M-III) dated 22.1.2001 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has vacated the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q by taking a lenient view in the matter. The learned commissioner has sustained the penalty of Rs. 90,129/- imposed equivalent to duty amount on the appellant under Rule 57U (6) of Central Excise Rules but set aside penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q of the rules ibid.
2. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that inasmuch as the Commissioner has sustained the penalty under Rule 57U(6), he should have also not vacated penalty under rule 173Q of the rules ibid.
3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee in spite of repeated notices issued to them. I, therefore, proceed to decide the case on merits based on the available records.
4. Appearing on behalf of the revenue, learned SDR Smt. R. Bhagya Devi reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned SDR and after perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), I find that that the order of vacating penalty under Rule 173Q of the rules ibid is sustainable in law inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 173Q are subject to provisions contained in sub-rule (6) of Rule 57U as the provisions have been substituted by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under Notification No. 46/97 (NT) dated 1.9.97 whereas the demand pertained to the period 1999. Therefore, if the penalty is imposed under sub-rule (6) of Rule 57U, no penalty can be imposed under Rule 173Q of the rules ibid I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by Revenue is, therefore, rejected by sustaining the impugned order. Ordered accordingly.