2006 (6) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the power of the Commissioner (Appeal) to reduce penalties imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with appeals filed by the department against an order that reduced penalties imposed on the respondents under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned DR argued that the penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) is not a maximum penalty, and the Commissioner (Appeal) does not have the authority to reduce it, citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. On the contrary, the advocate for the appellants contended that the Commissioner (Appeal) does possess the power to reduce such penalties, referring to a previous decision by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the appellants' own case on the same issue.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and records, noting that the Division Bench had already ruled on the issue in the appellants' previous case. The Tribunal referenced the Division Bench's decision, which upheld that a penalty equal to the outstanding duty amount is applicable for failure to pay duty by the specified date under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the issue in the current appeal was the same as the one decided by the Division Bench for the same assessee/appellant, and no appeal against the Tribunal's order was mentioned, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, following the precedent set by the Division Bench.

In summary, the judgment clarified the interpretation of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding the authority of the Commissioner (Appeal) to reduce penalties imposed, based on previous decisions and the specific circumstances of the case at hand.