Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S. Maps Enterprises, Jamshedpur on 8 February, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.E/70147/13
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.262/JSR/2012 dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise & Service Tax,Ranchi)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
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?
Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s. Maps Enterprises, Jamshedpur
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Sri S.S.Chatterjee, Suptd.(AR) for the Appellant (s) None for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Dr.D.M.Misra, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.02.16 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2016 ORDER No.FO/75192/2016 None present for the respondent. Heard Ld. AR for the revenue.
1. This is an Appeal filed by the revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.262/JSR/2012 dated 5.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent defaulted in discharging of monthly duty liability for the month of March 2010. The default continued till 28.06.2010, as the respondent thereafter paid the said duty . The Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.03.2011 proposing appropriation of the duty paid and penalty under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On adjudication, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.6,36,959.00 under Rule 25(1) (a) read with rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On Appeal by the respondent, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowed their appeal. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal.
3. Ld. AR for the revenue vehemently argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have confirmed the order imposing penalty by the adjudicating authority as the appellant had defaulted in discharging duty as on the due date and the default continued for a considerable period.
4. I find that while setting aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded reason at Para-5 of the impugned order as :
5 The only issue involved in this case is whether penalty is imposable under rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is on record that after the default, the required amount was paid in cash much before the issuance of Show Cause. Also there is no suppression, collusion, fraud or willful mis-statement in the present case due to submission of ER-1 in time with requisite declaration. Rule 25 starts with the word subject to the provision of section 11AC of Central Excise Act. So imposition of penalty under this rule does not arise. As a matter of fact There was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade any payment of duty. It is only because of stringent financial condition that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid alongwith interest much before issue of Show Cause Notice. Hence penalty under Rule 25 is not imposable. This observation gets support from the judgment pronounced by Honble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Saurashtra cement ltd. reported in 2010(260) E.L.T 71 (GUJ), And Honble tribunal in the case of Solar Chemferts pvt. Ltd vs. CCE, Thane-1 reported in 2012 (276)E.L.T 273 (Tribe Mumbai). However Penalty under Rule 27 is justified and imposed as Rs.5000/- only.
5. On going through the aforesaid reasoning, I do not see any discrepancy and hence, there is no ground made out by the revenue to interfere with the said order. In the result, the Order of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is upheld and the Revenues appeal is dismissed.
( Operative portion already pronounced in the open court) S/d.
(Dr. D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SS 1