Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 18 June, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
E/Stay/1226/2012 in &
Appeal No. E/1001/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 09/CE/ALLD/2012 dated 23.1.23012 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad]
Date of Hearing/decision: 18th June, 2012
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Allahabad Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri S.K. Panda, Jt. CDR Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Shri Krishnan, learned Counsel submits that the appellant does not dispute the duty element in this appeal and shall also cooperate with the Revenue making deposit of 25% of duty element towards penalty as the appellant does not intent to litigate the matter further with Revenue. Therefore, pre-deposit of penalty may be waived and appeal itself may be disposed.
2. Learned Jt. CDR says that deposit of duty and penalty element to the aforesaid extent needs confirmation.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. Subject to verification of the averment made by learned Counsel, when the appeal is on a very narrow dispute waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, appeal is disposed of by this common order.
5. The adjudication order shows that penalty imposed is two times higher than duty element. Such a disproportionate penalty is unwarranted in the fitness of the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, penalty levied under two different provisions of law is restricted to 25% of duty element which is concession given by Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. To reduce the dispute the appellant is directed to suffer penalty to that extent.
6. In view of the above, appeal is disposed confirming the duty element as well as interest reducing penalty to 25% of duty element modifying the appellate order to this extent. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed in the aforesaid manner. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3