Skip to content


V.B. Bakery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

(2004)(171)ELT401Tri(Bang.)

Appellant

V.B. Bakery

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt:


1. by this stay application appellant is seeking stay of the operation of the order-in-appeal no. 149/03-c.e., dated 24-6-03 and also to grant waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under section 11ac equivalent to duty from 28-9-96 to 31-3-1997 and also interest imposed under section 11b w.e.f. 28-9-96. the simple submission made by the ld.counsel is that the commissioner (appeals) by order-in-appeal no.48/2002-c.e., dated 31-1-2002 had already set aside the penalty imposed under section 11ac of the act. therefore he should not have passed another order on the same order-in-original. he submits that there are two order-in-appeals from the same order-in-original which are contradictory to each other. hence stay of the operation and waiver is prayed.2. heard ld. sdr who on prima facie consideration agreed with the submission made by the ld. counsel.3. on a careful consideration we find merit in the submissions made by the ld. counsel. the stay application is allowed granting-waiver of pre-deposit and staying the operation of the impugned order. the matter pertains to single member bench and the registry may list it before single member bench in its due course.

Judgment:


1. By this stay application appellant is seeking stay of the operation of the Order-in-Appeal No. 149/03-C.E., dated 24-6-03 and also to grant waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Section 11AC equivalent to duty from 28-9-96 to 31-3-1997 and also interest imposed under Section 11B w.e.f. 28-9-96. The simple submission made by the ld.Counsel is that the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal No.48/2002-C.E., dated 31-1-2002 had already set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. Therefore he should not have passed another order on the same Order-in-Original. He submits that there are two Order-in-Appeals from the same Order-in-original which are contradictory to each other. Hence stay of the operation and waiver is prayed.

2. Heard ld. SDR who on prima facie consideration agreed with the submission made by the ld. Counsel.

3. On a careful consideration we find merit in the submissions made by the ld. Counsel. The stay application is allowed granting-waiver of pre-deposit and staying the operation of the impugned order. The matter pertains to Single Member Bench and the Registry may list it before Single Member Bench in its due course.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //