Cce Vs. Ruby Strips (P) Ltd.

Cce vs Ruby Strips (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 30, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37217

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/37217
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj, M T K.C.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2004

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Ruby Strips (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(98)ECC489

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes - an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed - then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

.....the entire penalty by referring to the ratio of the law laid down in the case of m/s consolidated coffee ltd. v. agricultural ito, 218 itr 417 and m/s sadashiv castings, 2004 (165) elt 362 (tri). but the ratio of the law laid down in none of these cases is attracted to the facts of the present case. the imposition of penalty for non-payment of full duty in terms of rule 96-zp(3) in view of the law laid down by the high court in the case of pee aar steel pvt. ltd., 2004 (93) ecc 633 (all), is mandatory. therefore, the entire penalty could not be quashed away by the learned commissioner (appeals). that being so, the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained and requires modification keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the entire duty had already been paid by the respondents and that the validity of the compound levy scheme itself remained under debate before the apex court, the penalty of rs. 30,000 is imposed on the respondents. the appeal of the revenue accordingly stands allowed.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the penalty on the respondents, imposed under Rule 96-ZP(3) in toto.

2. Admittedly, the duty liability under the above said rule was not discharged by the respondents and they were served with a show cause notice for payment of the duty for the period April 1998 to June, 1998.

Duty earlier deposited by them was Rs. 2,77,755.

3. The respondents had later on deposited this duty, but the adjudicating authority still imposed the penalty equal to the amount of the duty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has quashed the entire penalty by referring to the ratio of the law laid down in the case of M/s Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural ITO, 218 ITR 417 and M/s Sadashiv Castings, 2004 (165) ELT 362 (Tri). But the ratio of the law laid down in none of these cases is attracted to the facts of the present case. The imposition of penalty for non-payment of full duty in terms of Rule 96-ZP(3) in view of the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Pee Aar Steel Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (93) ECC 633 (All), is mandatory. Therefore, the entire penalty could not be quashed away by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). That being so, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard cannot be sustained and requires modification keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the entire duty had already been paid by the respondents and that the validity of the Compound Levy Scheme itself remained under debate before the Apex Court, the penalty of Rs. 30,000 is imposed on the respondents. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands allowed.