Comm. of Central Excise and Customs Surat. Vs. Mahesh Dyeing and Printing Mills (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[asok kumar ganguly; swatanter kumar, jj.] - land acquisition act, 1894 sections 54 - appeals in proceedings before court -- while enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant, the high court fixed it at ` 345/- per square yard. still dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred appeals before the high court of delhi. the union of india felt aggrieved by this judgment of the high court enhancing the compensation granted to the claimants to the extent of ` 345/- per square yard and had filed the present appeal before this court. the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of the delhi high court in the case of anil kumar sharma (supra) was set aside by this court in the case of delhi development authority v. bali ram sharma [(2004) 6 scc 533] and the compensation of ` 345/- per square yard granted by the high court in that case was reduced by this court to ` 76,550/- per bigha and as such the compensation granted by the high court in the present case is also liable to be reduced as being a case covered by the said judgment. the correctness of the judgment of the reference court was questioned before the high court of..........discretion for reduction of quantum of penalty if duty determined is paid within 30 days of the order of appellate commissioner?(b) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has committed substantial error of law in dismissing appeal of the revenue and confirming order of the appellate commissioner of reducing penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty amount."2. mr.r.j.oza, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned order of the tribunal by placing reliance upon the order made by the adjudicating authority as well as the averments made in the memo of appeal.3. it is an accepted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this court rendered in the case of commissioner of central excise and customs, surat-ii v. mahalaxmi industries, 2010(2) g.l.h. 116. in the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.4. for the reasons stated in the case of commissioner of central excise and customs, surat-ii v. mahalaxmi industries (supra), the impugned order of the tribunal does not give rise to any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much.....

Judgment:

1. In this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 4^th November, 2008, made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) proposing the following two questions:

"(A) Whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inserted by Finance Act, 1996 with intention of imposing mandatory penalty of equivalent amount of duty liability on persons who evaded payment of tax and the said section does not leave any discretion for reduction of quantum of penalty if duty determined is paid within 30 days of the order of appellate commissioner?

(B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in dismissing appeal of the revenue and confirming order of the appellate commissioner of reducing penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty amount."

2. Mr.R.J.Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the order made by the adjudicating authority as well as the averments made in the memo of appeal.

3. It is an accepted position that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industries, 2010(2) G.L.H. 116. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.

4. For the reasons stated in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industries (supra), the impugned order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less, a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.