Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hmt Ltd. Tractor Division vs C.C.E., Panchkula on 20 July, 2011
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision:20.07 .2011 Central Excise Appeal No.1359 of 2006 Arising out of the order in original No.2/Commr./PKL/06 dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula. For Approval and Signature: Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s HMT Ltd. Tractor Division .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Panchkula . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellants Shri R.K. Verma, Authorized Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Oral Order No.____________________ Per Dr. C. Satapathy:
Heard both sides.
2. Learned Advocate Shri B.L. Narasimhan states that in this case, the Committee on Dispute had allowed the appellant only to agitate against the penalty imposed and hence the appeal is restricted to the challenge to the imposition of penalty. He further states that in the original proceeding, penalty imposed by the jurisdictional Commissioner was Rs.25,000/- only whereas in the remand proceeding arising from the appeal by the appellant, penalty has been enhanced to Rs.2 lakhs, which is not permissible.
3. Heard the learned DR.
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the penalty in the remand proceeding has been enhanced from original Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2 lakhs. It is settled law that appellant cannot be visited with greater penalty as a consequence of his own appeal. Hence we reduce the penalty from Rs.2 lakhs (rupees two lakhs only) to Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) originally determined by the jurisdictional authority. Appeal is thus partly allowed by reducing the penalty as indicated above.
(Dr. C. Satapathy Technical Member (M.V. Ravindran) Judicial Member scd/