9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority" 3. The facts involved in the present appeal are set out as follows. The respondent-assessee M/s. Zenith Tribes Limited is engaged in manufacturing of Polypropylene Staple Fiber, which are excisable goods. It avails Cenvat facility. On 30th August 2001, the officers of Excise Department visited the factory premises of the respondent and during physical verification of the finished goods lying there, they found shortage of finished goods of 10210 kg. against the stock mentioned in the daily stock register. In terms of the value, the shortage was of Rs. 8,60,612/- and the duty payable was determined at Rs. 1,40,898/-. The assessee thereupon paid R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The aggrieved assessee carried the matter further by way of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 20th March, 2006 held that since the amount of duty was already paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, the penalty and interest was not payable. The said order reads as under :- "1. Heard both sides. 2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the entire duty amount has already been paid before issue of the Show Cause Notice and the same is not being contested. As regards the penalty and the interest, he submits that in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Machinao Montell India Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III reported in 2004 (62) RLT 709 (CESTAT-LB) when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order is also extracted herein-below to indicate as to how the Tribunal dealt with the issue upon remand order by this Court : "M/s. Zenith Fibers Limited (ZFL) are engaged in the manufacture of polypropylene staple fiber. During a visit of the factory on 30th August 2001 and physical verification of the stock, shortage of 10,210 kg of finished goods was noticed. The General Manager of the Company admitted the shortage and duty amount of Rs. 1,40,898/- was immediately paid. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued and after adjudication, the Original Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,40,898/- under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, besides confirming the duty demand. The matter reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 (250) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Bang.)] 4. Aishwarya Plast Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [2009 (246) E.L.T. 728 (Tri.- Ahmd.)] 5 Kanpur Strips (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur-II [2001 (137) E.L.T. 1198 (Tri.-Del.)] I find myself in agreement with the learned advocate in view of the precedent decisions wherein Tribunal has taken a view that in cases of shortages conducted and admitted without investigation to establish evidences of clandestine removal, penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable. This was the only issue which was required to be considered by the Tribunal in terms of the directions of the Honourable Gujarat High Court. In view of the above discussion, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed hereinabove, it was noticed at the outset that the Tribunal did not discuss the issue with reference to those decisions of the Apex Court. 6.1 When the Tribunal was specifically directed to consider said decisions by an order of this Court, the Tribunal was duty bound to consider the same and render its decision with reference to and in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court. When a lower Court or quasi-judicial authority or the Tribunal is directed by the High Court to decide a question in a particular manner or with reference to a particular decision, such lower court or authority would be required to decide the issue in that manner only. The cryptic approach, as is reflected from the impugned order, cannot be justified. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
