Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Malwa Iron & Steel Company on 5 June, 2013
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:5.6.2013
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for
Publication under 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
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Appeal No.E/778/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.02/CE/CHD/2010 dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh).
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Malwa Iron & Steel Company Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri R.K. Mathur, DR for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No : 56850/2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of hot rolled products of non-alloy steel chargeable to central excise duty under Rule 96ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether penal provisions of Rule 96ZP(3) for imposition of penalty for failure to discharge monthly duty liability by the due date, can be initiated after expiry of 5 years. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that penal proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3) cannot be initiated after expiry of five years and against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue is in appeal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Shri R.K. Mathur, ld. Departmental Representative assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenues appeal.
4. Shri Rupendra Singh, ld. Counsel for the respondent, citing the judgment of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H) pleaded that penal proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3) for failure to discharge duty liability by the due date, cannot be initiated after five years, that Revenues appeal is based on the Tribunals judgment in the case of Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd. reported in 2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H), which has been reversed by the above mentioned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The point of dispute in this case stands decided in favour of the respondent by the judgement of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Concast (P) Ltd. (supra) and Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd. (supra). In view of this, I do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1