TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT ) and find that Rule 96ZO imposes an unreasonable restriction and is violative of Section 37 of the Act which clearly provides that a Rule can be framed only to the extent that it contravenes the provision of any such rule with intent to evade payment on duty. - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the penalty which was rightly upheld by the Tribunal. - Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2011 - Tarun Agarwala, U.C. Dhyani, JJ. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aalok Arora, Advocate for the respondent. This is an appeal u/S 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is, that the respondent is a company engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an order dated 31st March 2003, confirmed the demand of interest amounting to Rs.1,96,644/- under proviso 3 (i) of the Rule 96 ZO (3) and further imposed a penalty of Rs.67,50,000/- which was equal to the amount of duty under proviso 3 (ii) of the Rule 96ZO (3) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty, the respondent company preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Meerut, who by an order dated 4th June, 2004 reduced the penalty from Rs.67,50,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- The Revenue, being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), who by an order dated 27th August 2008, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O providing mandatory minimum penalty without the element of mens rea and without any element of discretion was excessive and an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights and, consequently, held that Rule 96ZO was ultravires the Act and the Constitution. In the light of this decision, the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the Tribunal in which it was held that the authority had the power to exercise its discretion and consider the element of mens rea was perfectly justified and need not be disturbed. In response to the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
