Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Tirupati vs Mr. K.V. Chandrasekharan on 18 July, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing:18/07/2012
Date of decision:18/07/2012
Application No.C/COD/82/2011; C/Stay/516/2011
Appeal No.C/808/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-original (Denovo) No.16/2010(CUS)
dt. 24/09/2010 passed by CC,CE&ST, Tirupati)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Tirupati
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
Mr. K.V. Chandrasekharan,
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the appellant.
Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: P.G. Chacko] The Departments appeal is delayed by 42 days. As this delay has been satisfactorily explained, we allow the COD application.
2. The next application filed by the appellant seeks stay of operation of the impugned order. On a perusal of the records, we have found that the appeal itself is fit for summary disposal. Accordingly, after rejecting the stay application, we take up the appeal. This appeal is against Order-in-Original No.16/2010(Cus.) dt. 24/09/2010 passed by the learned Commissioner pursuant to a remand ordered by this Bench vide Final Order No.1170/2009 dt. 07/10/2009. The respondent in this appeal is one Shri K.V. Chandrasekharan. This appeal has been filed pursuant to a Review Order dt. 10/02/2011 passed by the CBEC.
3. A similar appeal filed by the Department with one Shri Sandeep Kohli as the respondent was dismissed by this Bench vide Final Order No.315/2012 dt. 16/05/2012. After hearing both sides, we find that it is not in dispute that Shri K.V. Chandrasekharans case is similar to that of Shri Sandeep Kohli. Therefore, the reasons recorded in para-3 of Final Order No.315/2012 ibid are equally applicable to the instant appeal. Para-3 reads as follows:
3. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) that no penalty has been imposed on Shri Sandeep Kohli by the Commissioner in the original order passed by him in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice and that no appeal was filed by the department against the dropping of penalty by the Commissioner vide order-in-original No.1/2000 dated 12/1/2000. In the de novo proceedings also, no penalty has been imposed on Shri Sandeep Kohli by the Commissioner. The present appeal appears to be directed against this non-imposition of penalty on Shri Sandeep Kohli in the de novo proceedings. Obviously, the learned Commissioner could not have imposed any penalty on Shri Sandeep Kohli inasmuch as the original order dropping the penalty-related proposal vis-`-vis the Director of the assessee was accepted by the department. Thus, the position which crystallizes at present is that the department has no cause of action against Shri Sandeep Kohli. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed for this sole reason and consequently, the stay application also is liable to be rejected. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, the appeal and the stay application stand dismissed.
4. For the reasons recorded above, we reject this appeal. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 3