Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Sawan Mal Shibu Mal Steel Rolling ... on 7 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV Excise Appeal No. 1522 of 2010 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 61/CE/CHD-I/2010 dated 22/03/2010 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Versus M/s Sawan Mal Shibu Mal Steel Rolling Mills Respondent
Appearance Shri R.K. Mathur, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Shri Vickrant Kackaria, Advocate - for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) DATE OF HEARING : 07/06/2013.
Final Order No. 56655/2013 Dated : 07/06/2013 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The respondent are a rolling mill and during the period from December 1999 to March 2000, they were operating under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZP. During each month of the period of dispute, there was delay in discharge of monthly duty liability by the due date which attracted equal amount of penalty in terms of Rule 96 ZP (3). However, the proceedings for imposition of penalty were initiated by issue of show cause notice after five years on 16/9/05. The Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 27/2/09 imposed penalty of Rs. 1,66,407/- under Rule 96 ZP (3). However, on appeal being filed before Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 22/3/10 allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty following the judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12 (P&H). Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
2. Shri R.K. Mathur, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in Revenues appeal.
3. Shri Vickrant Kackaria, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Hari Concast (P) Ltd. reported in 2009 (242) E.L.T. 12 (P&H) has held in clear terms with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that though there is no limitation period for initiating penal proceedings for failure of discharge the duty liability by the due date, the penal proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period and it would be reasonable to adopt a period of five years in this regard and accordingly held that the penal proceedings initiated after five years are not sustainable, that same view has been taken by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 247 (P&H) with regard to the provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3), that provisions of Rule 96 ZO (3) are parimateria with the provisions of Rule 96 ZP (3) and the ratio of these two judgments of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court would apply to this also, that there is no contrary judgment of any High Court or Apex Court, and that in view of this, the departments appeal is without any merit and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
5. The issue involved in this case stands decided in favour of the respondent by two judgments of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court, as mentioned above. No contrary judgment of any High Court or Apex Court has been shown. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3