Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dharmendra textile processor in 4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Ornet Intermediates Ltd on 7 May, 2010Matching Fragments
CCE Ahmedabad Represented by:
None for the Assessee; Shri S.K. Mall, SDR for the Revenue. CORAM:
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:07.05.10 ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2010 Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
On matter being called, neither anybody is present nor is there any adjournment request on record. I also note that on earlier occasions also, the appellants were unrepresented. Accordingly, I heard the learned SDR. The matter stand listed as a result of remand order by the Honble High Court of Gujarat, vide which the penalty amount is required to be readjudicated in the light of the law declared by Honble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3. It is seen that the Tribunal vide its Order No.A/810-812/WZB/2006/C-IV, dt.14.2.06, had set aside the entire penalty imposed upon the appellant in terms of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, on the ground that duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice. The said order was appealed against by the Revenue before Honble High Court, who passed the following order:
The questions raised in this appeal are required to be considered by the Tribunal in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008(231) ELT 3.
Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The question of applicability of proviso to Section 11AC will also be considered and examined by the Tribunal while deciding the matter afresh. The Tribunal shall pass fresh order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. The said Provisos were the subject matter of consideration of their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtan Vs. JR Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) ELT 209 (P & H) . After taking note of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors, it was observed that when the Adjudicating Authority as also Commissioner (Appeals) acted illegally and contrary to the first Proviso to Section 11AC of the Act, and no option to pay the dues and penalty of 25% within 30 days was given to the assessee the fault lies with the authorities and not with the assessee. As such the Honble Delhi High Courts decision in the case of Malbro Appliances Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Tri.-Del.) and KP Pouches Pvt. Ltd. judgment reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 Delhi was concurred with.