Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Mumbai Iii vs M/S Ispat Industries Ltd on 29 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/803/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AH/123/M-III/2009 dated 20.3.09 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
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 Mumbai III
:
Appellants
Versus
M/s Ispat Industries Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR for Appellants Shri Sunil Nawandhar, C.A. for Respondents Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 29.09.10 Date of Decision : 29.09.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the lower appellate authority dropped the penalty on the respondents holding that when the goods are not held liable for confiscation, no penalty is liable under Rule 26.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The short issue is that whether the penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed on the assessee when the goods are not held for confiscation or not? In the case of Shri Chandrakant Nathwani vide Order No. A/320/10/SMB/C IV dated 07.07.10, this Tribunal after following the decision in the case of Mukand Ltd. vs. CCE Belapur 2007 (218) ELT 120 (Tri.- Mumbai) and Castrol India Ltd. vs. CCE Vapi 2008 (222) ELT 408 (Tri. Mum) wherein it was held that when the goods are not liable for confiscation under Rule 26, no penalty can be imposed. Following the same, in this case also no penalty can be imposed on the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2