Vinod Kumar Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 09, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42107

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/42107
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Mar 09, 2006
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Excerpt

1. applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of personal penalty of rs. 5,000/-. applicant is working as deputy manager (operational) with m/s. bharat petroleum corporation limited. while confirming the demand on m/s. bharat petroleum corporation limited the penalty is imposed on the appellant. the appeal filed by the bharat petroleum corporation limited is still pending. in the impugned order there is no finding regarding commission or omission with intend to evade payment of duty against the appellant. therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived and stay petition is allowed. in the present appeal the applicants are only challenging the imposition of penalty of rs. 5,000/-. therefore, we are taking up this appeal for hearing. the penalty was imposed under rule 26 of cenvat excise rules.we have gone through the impugned order and in the impugned order there is no mention of any commission or omission on the part of the appellant with intend to evade payment of duty. the adjudicating authority only held that present appellant is the employee of m/s.bharat petroleum corp. ltd. and all policy decisions are taken by the management of the company. therefore, token penalty has been imposed.as the present applicant is only deputy manager (operational), and there is nothing on record to so of the applicant is concerned with policy decision of the company. therefore, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable hence set aside. appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Applicant is working as Deputy Manager (Operational) with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. While confirming the demand on M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited the penalty is imposed on the appellant. The appeal filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is still pending. In the impugned order there is no finding regarding commission or omission with intend to evade payment of duty against the appellant. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the duty is waived and Stay petition is allowed. In the present appeal the applicants are only challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, we are taking up this appeal for hearing. The penalty was imposed under Rule 26 of CENVAT Excise Rules.

We have gone through the impugned order and in the impugned order there is no mention of any commission or omission on the part of the appellant with intend to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority only held that present appellant is the employee of M/s.

Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and all policy decisions are taken by the management of the Company. Therefore, token penalty has been imposed.

As the present applicant is only Deputy Manager (Operational), and there is nothing on record to so of the applicant is concerned with policy decision of the Company. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable hence set aside. Appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Vinod Kumar vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, Vice-, N T C.N.B.