Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bolpur vs M/S.S.A.I.L., Alloy Steel Plant, ... on 6 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.EDM-60/06
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.02/Commr./BOL/2005 dated 25.02.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI M. VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER
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, Bolpur Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs. M/s.S.A.I.L., Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur Respondent (s) Appearance:
Shri B.B. Agarwal, Authorised Representative (Jt.CDR) for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Hon'ble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member Date of Hearing:- 06.10.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- 06.10.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Shri S.S.Kang.
1. Heard the Learned Authorised Representative (Jt.CDR) as none appeared on behalf of the Respondents inspite of notice. The Revenue produced the clearance from Committee on Disputes to pursue the Appeal before the Tribunal in the meeting held on 14.12.2006. The Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order whereby Commissioner of Central Excise held that there is no cause for imposing penalty in terms of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. The contention of Revenue is that the demand was confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that there was suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore the Respondents are liable for penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and in the case of Union of India vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2003 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).
2. We find that the adjudicating Authority in the impugned order confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty and in respect of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act the adjudicating Authority held that there is no cause for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 11AC of the Act. We find that as the demand is confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty therefore the matter requires re-consideration by the adjudicating Authority in respect of imposition of penalty only in view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Revenue. The impugned order whereby held that it is not a case for imposition of penalty under 11AC of the Act is set aside and the matter regarding imposition of penalty under 11AC of the Act is remanded to the adjudicating Authority to decide afresh in view of the above decisions and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) sd/ sd/ (M. VEERAIYAN) (S.S.KANG) TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT sm 3 Appeal No.EDM-60/06