Calcutta High Court
Commission Of Central Excise vs M/S. Sandeep Goyal & Co on 22 April, 2010
Author: Mohit S. Shah
Bench: Mohit S. Shah, Sengupta
CEXA No. 19 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction
Original Side
COMMISSION OF CENTRAL EXCISE,CAL-I Appellant
Versus
M/S. SANDEEP GOYAL & CO. Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. R.Chaudhuri, Advocate For Respondent : None appears BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SENGUPTA Date : 22nd April, 2010.
THE COURT : The reference arises from an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.9700/- to Rs.1000/-.
The question of law referred to this Court is as under :
"Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in reducing the amount of penalty of Rs.9,700/- to Rs.1000/- ? "2
CEXA No. 19 of 2001 The facts leading to this reference, shortly stated, are that the Respondent-assessee failed to submit service tax return within the stipulated period. The Superintendent of Service Tax by Assessment Memo. dated 14th February, 1996 confirmed the demand of Rs.57/- as short payment of interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs.9700/- for late submission of ST-3 return in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed for reduction of the quantum of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. In the second appeal, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs.9700/- to Rs.1000/-.
According to the Revenue, the Tribunal had no power or jurisdiction to reduce the amount of penalty.
Though served, none appears for the respondent- assessee. The learned counsel for the Revenue sought to contend that in view of the clear language of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the amount of penalty.
In the facts and circumstances of this case and, particularly having regard to the amount involved, we are not 3 CEXA No. 19 of 2001 inclined to express any opinion on the question referred to us as the amount involved is very small.
Hence, with a clarification that the view taken by the Tribunal about its power to reduce the amount of penalty may not be treated to have been approved by us, we decline to answer the question referred to us only on the ground that the amount involved is too small to call for investment of any considerable judicial time.
The reference is accordingly disposed of. Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
( MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J.) ( SENGUPTA, J.) Rsg.
Asst.Registrar (CR) 4