Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ship Containers Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Thane I on 13 April, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/COD-720 to 730/11
E/S/821 to 831/11 and E/S/343/10
IN APPEAL NO. Mum E/738 to 748/11 and E/275/10
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SB/140 to 151/Th-I/2009 dated 07.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I.)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Ship Containers Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane I
Respondent
Appearance Shri Ketan Shah, Director for Appellants Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Supdt (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13.04.2012 Date of Decision : 13.04.2012 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The applicant filed these appeals along with stay applications and condonation of delay applications in filing the appeals.
2. Shri Ketan Shah, Director of the appellant company submitted that against twelve impugned orders they filed one composite appeal and on pointing out by the Registry about the defect, they filed separate appeals for separate impugned orders therefore, there was a delay of 430 days in filing these appeals. Considering the contention of the applicant is satisfying I allow the applications for Condonation of delay.
3. Further I find the issue involved is in narrow compass therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit, I take up the appeals themselves for disposal.
4. The short issue involved in this matter is that a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on each appellant have been imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the appellant did not file their regular returns in time.
5. It is find that the appellants were in bonafide belief that they have to file quarterly returns instead of monthly returns. After sometime they rectified their mistake by filing the monthly returns A the appellant is under bonafide belief, no penalty is imposed on them.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. I find that in this case the mistake committed by the appellant is a technical nature and it is a case of 12 months therefore exercising my power I reduce the penalty from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,000/- in each case. In view of the above observation, the appeals as well as stay applications are disposed of. The appellant is directed to make the payment of penalty within 30 days of the communication of this order. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2