TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramendra Textile Processors [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] which the Tribunal was bound to take while deciding the appeal and instead the Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on its own decision in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. vs CCE [1999 (8) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] - the Tribunal also gave no justifiable legal reasons for reducing the penalty amount. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 4507 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - J. Chelameswar And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and final order No. 123/2004-B dated 05.11.2003 passed in Appeal No. E/1122 of 2003-B by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copper coils as an intermediate product which was meant for captive consumption. 7) This led to issuance of show cause notice dated 17.04.2001 to the respondent by the adjudicating authority proposing therein the demand of unpaid duty payable by the respondent on the aforementioned goods and also penalty. By order dated 25.02.2003, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty for ₹ 2,05,291/- along with interest under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The authority also imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,06,000/- under Section 11-AC of the Act read with Rule 173-Q of the Rules. 8) Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent(assessee) filed appeal before the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11-AC of the Act read with Rule 173-Q of the Rules in the light of the law laid down in Dharamendra Textile Processors s case (supra) and, more so, when in principle, neither the respondent questioned the grounds for its imposition and nor the Tribunal found any fault in the imposition. In other words, the submission was that in the light of the law laid down in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra), there was no discretion left with the Tribunal to reduce the quantum of penalty amount once it held that a case for penalty is made out. 13) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 14) As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Union Budget reference has been made to the provision stating that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty. In the Notes on Clauses also the similar indication has been given. 20. Above being the position, the plea that Rules 96-ZQ and 96-ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained. Dilip Shroff case was not correctly decided but SEBI case has analysed the legal position in the correct perspectives. The reference is answered .. (emphasis supplied) 15) Applying the aforementioned law to the facts of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal erred in reducing the amount of penalty from ₹ 2,06,000/- to ₹ 50,000/-. Indeed, the Tribunal, in our opinion, failed to ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
