Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Meerut I vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd on 5 March, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 5.3.2013 Central Excise Appeal No.2929 of 2010 Arising out of the order in appeal No.99-CE/MRT-I/2010-11 dated 28.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I), Central Excise, Meerut I. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes C.C.E., Meerut I .. Appellant Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh K. Mathur, A.R. for the appellant Revenue None for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Final Order No. 55711/2013 dated 05/03/2013 Per Mr. S.S. Kang:
Heard the learned A.R. for Revenue as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs.5,000/-.
3. The contention of Revenue is that in the present appeal, as the respondent has violated the provisions of Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 twice, therefore, penalty should be Rs.5,000/- in each violation.
4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there is one continuous default on the part of the respondent, hence penalty of Rs.5,000/- which is maximum amount permissible under rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules will meet the ends of justice.
5. In view of the above finding which is not controverted in the present appeal. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
(S.S. Kang) Vice President scd/ 1