M/S. Aml Steels Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

M/S. Aml Steels Ltd. and Others vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Dec 03, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/944021

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/944021
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Dec 03, 2009
Case Number: E/S/325 to 328 of 2009 and E/502 to 505 of 2009
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Aml Steels Ltd. and Others

Advocate Smt. Prameela Viswanthan, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Respondent.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Excerpt

.....and the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant-company under section 11ac of the central excise act, 1944. however, she states that the total fine and penalty imposed in this case amounts to about rs.5,45,000/- which is more than ten times the duty amount involved in the case. hence, she prays that a lenient view may be taken and fine and penalty may be reduced. 3. heard shri t.h. rao, learned sdr appearing for the department. 4. after hearing both sides, i find that the fact of clandestine manufacture and removal as detected by the department stands established. the duty demand of rs.54,755/- has been honoured by the appellants and they are not contesting the imposition of equal penalty under section 11ac. however, the submission made by the learned counsel for the reduction of fine and penalty imposed in this case has merit as the same are disproportionately high compared to the amount of duty evasion involved. i am of the view that the extent of duty evasion should have a bearing on fine and penalty imposed. accordingly, the redemption fine in respect of the impugned goods is reduced to rs.33,500/- (rupees thirty-three thousand five hundred only), the redemption fine in respect of the vehicle is reduced to rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), the penalty on the general manager engineer shri bishan singh is reduced to rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only), the penalties imposed on the driver and cleaner of the vehicle s/shri r. sekar and r. prakash are reduced to rs.2,000/- each (rupees two thousand only) and the additional penalty of r.20,000/- imposed on the appellant company is set aside. the appeals are thus partly allowed by way of reduction in the redemption fine and penalties as indicated above.

Full Judgment

Heard both sides. Considering the fact that the entire amount of duty of Rs.54,755/- has been paid by the appellants before issue of the show-cause notice and promptly after detection of the case, the requirement of predeposit of the balance amounts are waived and with the consent of both sides all these four appeals are taken up for hearing and disposal together.

2. Smt. Prameela Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that she is not disputing the duty demand which already stands discharged and the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant-company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, she states that the total fine and penalty imposed in this case amounts to about Rs.5,45,000/- which is more than ten times the duty amount involved in the case. Hence, she prays that a lenient view may be taken and fine and penalty may be reduced.

3. Heard Shri T.H. Rao, learned SDR appearing for the Department.

4. After hearing both sides, I find that the fact of clandestine manufacture and removal as detected by the department stands established. The duty demand of Rs.54,755/- has been honoured by the appellants and they are not contesting the imposition of equal penalty under Section 11AC. However, the submission made by the learned counsel for the reduction of fine and penalty imposed in this case has merit as the same are disproportionately high compared to the amount of duty evasion involved. I am of the view that the extent of duty evasion should have a bearing on fine and penalty imposed. Accordingly, the redemption fine in respect of the impugned goods is reduced to Rs.33,500/- (Rupees thirty-three thousand five hundred only), the redemption fine in respect of the vehicle is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), the penalty on the General Manager Engineer Shri Bishan Singh is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), the penalties imposed on the driver and cleaner of the vehicle S/Shri R. Sekar and R. Prakash are reduced to Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees two thousand only) and the additional penalty of R.20,000/- imposed on the appellant company is set aside. The appeals are thus partly allowed by way of reduction in the redemption fine and penalties as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties M/S. Aml Steels Ltd. and Others vs Commissioner of Central Ex... Same Subject Excise Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member