Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Pune I vs M/S Tata Motors Ltd on 5 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/871/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VSK/111/2009 dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)
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 : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
CCE Pune I
:
Appellants
Versus
M/s Tata Motors Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance Shri V.K. Singh, SDR for Appellants Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 05.10.10 Date of Decision : 05.10.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that two show-cause notices were issued to the respondent and the same were adjudicated by the Asst. Commissioner confirming duty along with interest and penalty was dropped. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the confirmation of duty and interest and the Revenue has also preferred an appeal against dropping of penalty on the respondent. During the proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order in the appeal filed by the respondent. Against that order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order No. A/138/10/SMB/C-IV dated 23.2.2010 set aside the confirmation of duty and interest which has attained penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the appeal of the Revenue for waiver of penalty held that as the adjudication order has already been confirmed by him in the respondents appeal, hence no remedy lie, revenue has to prefer an appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue is in appeal before me.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the submissions, I find that confirmation of duty has already been set aside by the Tribunal which has attained finality, penalty cannot be levied on the respondents. In view of the above nothing survive in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 2