Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Patiala Castings (P) Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 25 July, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 

WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, 

NEW DELHI-110066



COURT NO. II



Central Excise appeal No. 2870/2005-Ex[DB]



[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 18/CE/2005 dated 27.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh]



Date of Hearing/decision: 25th July, 2013



M/s. Patiala Castings (P) Ltd.,                                         Appellant



	Versus



CCE, Chandigarh                                                         Respondent
Present for the Assessee      : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate

Present for the Revenue       : Mrs. Ranjana Jha, Jt. CDR

                                             

Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

	    Honble Shri Rakesh KUmar, Technical Member

			    

FINAL ORDER NO. 57135/2013



Per D.N. Panda

Penalty imposed on the appellant is in terms of Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Provision existed at that time in that Rule was that penalty shall be levied equal to duty. Such an issue was addressed by Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd.  2010 (260) ELT 343 (P&H) holding that minimum sentence is to be decided on touch stone of reasonableness. Appeal of proportionality guides the quantum of punishment. If the statute provide for disproportionate or excessive restriction on fundamental right the Court can go into the question whether there is proper balance in fundamental right and the restriction imposed by law. Since the law provides minimum penalty to the extent of duty that ousts the jurisdiction of levying authority from his application of mind which is not subscribed by elementary principle of jurisprudence. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 1.00 crore imposed in this case which is equal to the duty is not permissible following the principle of laws laid down by the judgement of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Bansal Alloys & Metal (P) Ltd. vs. UOI  2010 (260) ELT 343 (P&H). The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed.

(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (RAKESH KUMAR) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK ??

??

??

??

2