Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Rohtak vs M/S Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd on 30 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/2293/2007- (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.312-313/SSS/RTK/2007 dated 20.06.2007passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-III) Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.09.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Rohtak Appellant Vs. M/s Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd Respondent
Appearance Sh. Satyapal, AR- for the appellant None -for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. 61476/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
Heard the Ld. AR.
2. The brief facts of the case are that penalty has been imposed on the respondent for faulty payment of Central Excise Duty in terms of Rule 8(3) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the respondent has paid duty along with interest for the faulted period, the demand of duty and interest paid by the respondent were appropriated but Ld. Commissioner (A) hold that penalty is not imposable on the respondent. The revenue is in appeal against the said orders is before me.
3. Considering the fact that the provisional of Rule 8(3) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been declared ultra virus of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sandley Industries reported in 2015 (326) ELT 256 (P&H), wherein the High Court held that the provisions of Rule 8(3) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are ultra virus. As the rule itself is declared ultra virus, therefore, I hold that no penalty is imposable on the respondent. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal rt Member (Judicial) 1 E/2293/2007 CCE, Rohtak Vs. M/s Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd