Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. L.M.L. Ltd. vs Cce, Kanpur on 12 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(132)ELT337(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G.R. Sharma
1. A prayer has been made by the applicant that the Tribunal should rectify para 12 of the Final Order passed by it and cancel the penalty of Rs.one lakh inadvertently sustained.
2. In para 12 of the order, this Tribunal had held "12. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The orders of confiscation of the seized yarn are upheld. The fine in lieu of confiscation already being lenient does not require to be reduced. The orders of confirming duty amounting to Rs.26,79,400.91 are set aside and consequently the quantum of penalty is reduced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh".
3. We have heard Shri R.Santhanam for the appellant and Smt. Ananya Ray, Ld. SDR for the Revenue.
4. The request of the appellant is that in case the duty amount has been set aside, penalty should also be abated. In support of his contention he cited and relied upon the decision ofthe Apex Court in the case of CCE vs H.M.M.Ltd. reported in 1995(76)ELT.497.
5. We note in the instant case that it was not only the demand that was set aside. There was confiscation of the goods and therefore, thefacts of this case are different from those in the case of CCE vs HMM Ltd. Since there was confiscation of goods, penalty was sustainable in law. Thus, we do not find any merit in the application filed for rectification of mistake. The application is, therefore, rejected.
The appellants have also filed a Misc. application for directing the authorities below to refund Rs.8 lakhs deposited by them for hearing the appeal which has since been decided.
6. We have heard Shri R.Santhanam for the applicant and Smt. Ananya Ray, Ld. SDR for the respondent Commissioner. We note in the instant case that the applicant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8 lakhs as pre-deposit. The appeal has since been decided in favour of the assessee and therefre, the amount becomes refundable to the applicant. We do not find any reason why the amount should not be refunded. The Asstt. Commissioner is, therefore, directed to refund the amount forthwith and report compliance within two months from today. The matter of complying with the above direction should be reported to the Tribunal on 9.8.2001. The Misc. application filed by the applicant is allowed in the above terms.