Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd on 12 May, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. E/438/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RKR(15)221/07 dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Aurangabad. 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?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. :
Appellants VS M/s. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Respondents Appearance Shri Jamman Singh, JDR Authorized Representative None For Respondent. CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 12/05/2010 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Revenue has filed this appeal.
2. Today the learned DR submitted that against the impugned order the respondent had also filed the appeal before this Tribunal. In that appeal vide order No.A/702/07/WZB/SMB/C-IV dated 20.4.2007 this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing both parties and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. He submitted that, in view of the order passed by this Tribunal in the appeal of Respondent against the impugned order, this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to decide the duty liability on the respondent. In that situation, this appeal for confirmation of penalty has become infructuous and prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the appeal is infructuous.
3. Heard.
4. I find that in this case of the respondent, who had challenged the confirmation of duty liability confirmed by the impugned order has been remanded. The appeal filed by Revenue against dropping of penalty is not maintainable and has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal filed the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 2