Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. German Ink and Shri Liladhar V. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....filed by the assesse, wherein it is observed as follows: heard both sides. the dispute here is regarding the quantum of penalty. considering the fact that the duty involved is only rs. 83,791/-, the penalty on the first appellant is reduced from rs. 83,791/- to rs. 20,000/-and penalty on the second appellant is reduced from rs. 50,000/- to rs. 5,000/-. the appeal is otherwise dismissed except for reduction in penalty.4. at the time of disposal of the appeals filed by the assessee, the department has not pointed out pendency of these appeals, which are on the same subject matter. consequently, they remained on the file undisposed till today. this is obviously due to the mistake on the part of the department representative in not bringing to notice to the tribunal about the pendency of the appeals.5. on due consideration of the matter, the assessee was shown some concession by reducing the penalty amount having regard to the factum of the duty involved. in the light of the aforesaid discussion, there remains nothing to be heard in the present appeals filed by the department as there is no other issue involved except the quantum of penalty. therefore, the principle held in the.....

Judgment:

2. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal No. RKS/294-295/DAMAN/2003 dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Daman, for enhancement of the penalty amount.

3. The assessee also filed two similar appeals against the same Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Daman, for setting aside the penalty amount. The Tribunal, by its Order No. A/333-34/WZB/2004/C-IV dated 25.05.2004, dismissed the appeals filed by the assesse, wherein it is observed as follows: Heard both sides. The dispute here is regarding the quantum of penalty. Considering the fact that the duty involved is only Rs. 83,791/-, the penalty on the first appellant is reduced from Rs. 83,791/- to Rs. 20,000/-and penalty on the second appellant is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal is otherwise dismissed except for reduction in penalty.

4. At the time of disposal of the appeals filed by the assessee, the Department has not pointed out pendency of these appeals, which are on the same subject matter. Consequently, they remained on the file undisposed till today. This is obviously due to the mistake on the part of the Department Representative in not bringing to notice to the Tribunal about the pendency of the appeals.

5. On due consideration of the matter, the assessee was shown some concession by reducing the penalty amount having regard to the factum of the duty involved. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there remains nothing to be heard in the present appeals filed by the Department as there is no other issue involved except the quantum of penalty. Therefore, the principle held in the Larger Bench's case in Standard Tapulin cannot be made applicable to the present case. The decision made in the appeals filed by the assesse is reasoned, just and legal.

6. Since a decision by the ld. Member (T) vide Order No.A-333-34/WZB/2004/C-IV dated 25.05.2004 fixing the penalty in this very case has been arrived, there is no reason for me to differ with him and allow this appeal in any other manner than dismissing it. In view of the aforesaid decision, the present appeals of the Department for the same issue become infructuous and also redundant. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed.