Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Raghuvir Rolling Mills vs Cce, Kanpur on 8 September, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Old Red Building, 38 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211 001 COURT NO. II DATE OF HEARING : 08/09/2017. DATE OF DECISION : 08/09/2017. Excise Appeal No. 2518 of 2011 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 161/CE/APPL/KNP/2011 dated 19/07/2011 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur.] M/s Raghuvir Rolling Mills Appellant Versus CCE, Kanpur Respondent
Appearance Shri Parnav Mittal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Mohd. Atlaf, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. __71011 /2017 Dated : 08/09/2017 Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellant has challenged demand of interest and penalty imposed on them under Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise rules, 1944 and penalty imposed on them under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules has been declared ultravires by the Honble Apex court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. CCE reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.), therefore, the penalty on the appellant is not imposable. The learned Counsel further submits that as per decision of the Honble Apex court in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mill vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) when compounded levy scheme has been invoked, in that circumstances, normal scheme is not applicable and duty cannot be demanded under normal scheme. Therefore, the penalty under Section 173Q is not imposable on them.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
4. Considering the fact that the Honble Apex court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra) has declared provision of Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 are ultravires, therefore, I hold that demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 96 ZP is not sustainable.
5. Further, I find that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I find that as the said penalty has been imposed under the said rules, which is not contested by the appellant on merits merely saying that as per the decision of Honble Apex court in Hans Steel Rolling Mill (supra) normal scheme is not applicable. I find that in the case of Hans Steel Rolling Mill (supra) the Honble Apex court held that duty cannot be demanded under normal scheme. In the said case, the Honble Apex court has not decided the issue of penalty. In that circumstances, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is confirmed against the appellant.
6. In this term, appeal is disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) PK 3 EX/2518 of 2011