Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Lucknow vs M/S Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd on 6 July, 2010
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing: 6.7.2010 Excise Appeal No. 1689 of 2008-SM with E/CO/330/2008-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 56-CE/LKO/08 dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow] For approval and signature: 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. 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? CCE, Lucknow Appellant Vs. M/s Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for the Appellant Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR
Appeared for the Respondent - Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate
Coram: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
Order No..dated.
Per M. Veeraiyan:
Appeal No. E/1689 of 2008 is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 54-CE/LKO/2008 dated 24.4.2008. The cross-objection No. 330 of 2008 is connected to this appeal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. On 1.6.2010 when the matter was on the board, the ld. DR pointed out that as per cross-objection, the partys appeal No. E/1529/08 against the same order is pending and the same have to be tagged on. It has since been noticed that Appeal No. 1529/08 stands disposed of by final Order No. 535/2010 dated 6.5.2010.
4. The original authority vide order dated 11.1.2008 confirmed demand of Rs.3,73,515/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty on the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 24.4.08 upheld the demand but set aside the penalty. The party has filed appeal against the demand upheld against them and the said appeal has been disposed of by the Tribunal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal by the department is seeking restoration of the penalty. Since the issue relating to demand itself is before the Commissioner (Appeals) on remand, the issue relating to penalty has also to go back to the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above, taking note of the fact that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) already stands set aside, I direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue of penalty also afresh. The cross objection is mainly in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the same relates to setting aside penalty and the same is also disposed of.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (M. VEERAIYAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RM