Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Passed By: Commissioner Of Central ... vs Shri Ananthan Vaitheeswaran on 3 May, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD COURT: II Application No. E/S/221/2009 Appeal No. E/224/2009 Arising out of: OIO No.01/Commissioner/2009, dt.15.1.2009. Passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad Appellant: Shri Ananthan Vaitheeswaran. Respondent:
CCE Ahmedabad Represented by:
Shri Nirav Shah, Adv: for the Assessee; Shri S.K. Mall, SDR for the Revenue.
CORAM:
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:03.05.10 ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2010 Per: Archana Wadhwa:
The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.50 lakhs imposed upon the appellant, who is Executive Director of M/s Nachmo Knitex Ltd., Ahmedabad under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the finding that he was aware of fraudulent activities of the said company. The impugned order also confirmed the duty and imposed penalty on M/s Nachmo Knitex Ltd. by denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.14/2002-CE, dt.1.3.02. However, the stay petition of the company has not been decided as the said company has gone into liquidation and the liquidator has been appointed, who has not appeared before us today. The matter regarding stay petition in the case of M/s Nachmo Knitex Ltd. is adjourned to 14.06.10.
2. Learned advocate draws our attention to the Tribunals order in the case of M/s Shanti Processors Ltd. being Order No.S/1124/WZB/AHD/ 2009, dt.3.8.09 vide which unconditional stay was granted to the appellant similarly situate by following the precedent decisions of the Tribunal. For ready reference, Para 3 cited in the above order is reproduced below.
After hearing both sides, we find that the identical issue was the subject matter of various precedent decisions of the Tribunal. A reference is made to Tribunals decision in case of Suditi Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Belapur 2008 (180) ELT 72 (Tri-Mumbai) as also the decision in the case of Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2005 (190) ELT 217 (Tri-Mumbai). Our attention is also being drawn to another stay Order No.S/731/WZB/AHD/09, dt.4.6.09 passed by this Bench in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad vide which an unconditional stay was granted after observing that there is a prima facie case in their favour. We also note that in another decision of the Delhi Tribunal in case of Sunrise International Vs. CCE Ludhiana 2005 (191) ELT 342 (Tri-Delhi), directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty amount, was set aside by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide their Order dt.5.7.05 in CWP No.4470 of 2005 in the case of M/s Adinath Dyeing & Finishing Mills and the matter was remanded to Tribunal for decision without insisting for deposit of any amount.
3. By adopting the ratio of the decision, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty and stay recovery of the same.
4. Stay petition is accordingly allowed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(B.S.V. Murthy) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
??
??
??
??
2