Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Allahabad vs R.K. Cigarettes (P) Ltd on 22 January, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision:22.1.2013 Central Excise Appeal No.1080 of 2005 Arising out of the order in appeal No.03-CE/ALLD/2005 dated 25.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad. Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? C.C.E., Allahabad .. Appellant Vs. R.K. Cigarettes (P) Ltd. . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Jain, A.R. for Revenue None for the respondent Coram: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member Final Order No. Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reduced the penalty imposed upon the respondent to Rs.5000/- in terms of Rule 27 of Central Excise Act on the ground of late deposit of duty under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing the learned A.R. for Revenue we find that issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and confirmed by the Honble High Court of Gujarat reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.). It stands held that the contravention of provision of Rule 8 would attract penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 , which provides maximum penalty of Rs.5000/- and under Rule 25 is not imposable for the alleged default of late payment .
3. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member (Sahab Singh) Technical Member scd/ 2