Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Engineering

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Maharashtra Engineering

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 17, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44615

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/44615
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-
Decided On: Jan 17, 2007
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Maharashtra Engineering

Excerpt

.....of the tribunal in the case of cce v. machino montell .2. although the larger bench decision was taken up in appeal before the hon'ble punjab & haryana high court which by its order has set aside the larger bench decision and remanded the case for deciding whether the facts in that case warrant imposition of penalty, the high court having jurisdiction over the assessees viz.bombay high court has in the case of cce v. gaurav mercantiles ltd. dismissed the appeal of the revenue for reference of question of law against tribunal's order which took the view that no penalty under section 11 ac is called for when the duty has been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice. the ld. d.r. draws my attention to the decision of hon'ble madhya pradesh high court reported in 2006 (203) e.l.t. 15 (m.p.) in the case of sai machine tools pvt.ltd. v. cce, indore which has held that the provisions of section 11 ac are attracted even when duty has been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice. the high court has distinguished the bombay high court decision in gaurav mercantiles ltd. as well as the decision of the karnataka high court in the case of shree krishna pipe industries by stating that those hon'ble high courts did not examine the scope of section 11ac but only held that the case does not involve any substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal which was dismissed in limine. however, since the assessees is situated within the jurisdiction of bombay high court, it is the decision of that high court which is required to be followed and further, the west zonal bench of the tribunal is also under the jurisdiction of the bombay high court and for these reasons, i hold that the bombay high court decision in gaurav mercantiles ltd. is to be followed by this tribunal. following the ratio of the bombay high court decision cited supra, i uphold the impugned order by which penalty on the respondents is set aside and dismiss the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. I have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the assesses/respondents contention that since they paid the demand and interest before issue of show cause notice, penalty under the provisions of Section 11 AC cannot be imposed, relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Machino Montell .

2. Although the Larger Bench decision was taken up in appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which by its order has set aside the Larger Bench decision and remanded the case for deciding whether the facts in that case warrant imposition of penalty, the High Court having jurisdiction over the assessees viz.

Bombay High Court has in the case of CCE v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. dismissed the appeal of the Revenue for reference of question of law against Tribunal's order which took the view that no penalty under Section 11 AC is called for when the duty has been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice. The ld. D.R. draws my attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 15 (M.P.) in the case of Sai Machine Tools Pvt.

Ltd. v. CCE, Indore which has held that the provisions of Section 11 AC are attracted even when duty has been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice. The High Court has distinguished the Bombay High Court decision in Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. as well as the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shree Krishna Pipe Industries by stating that those Hon'ble High Courts did not examine the scope of Section 11AC but only held that the case does not involve any substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal which was dismissed in limine. However, since the assessees is situated within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court, it is the decision of that High Court which is required to be followed and further, the West Zonal Bench of the Tribunal is also under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and for these reasons, I hold that the Bombay High Court decision in Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. is to be followed by this Tribunal. Following the ratio of the Bombay High Court decision cited supra, I uphold the impugned order by which penalty on the respondents is set aside and dismiss the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Maharashtra Engineering Same Subject Excise Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-