2008 (2) TMI 878 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty u/s 76 - interpretation of statute - Held that - the question formulated in these review Petitions would not arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner. As noticed by us earlier, the Deputy Commissioner has preceded to levy the penalty in exercise of the discretion conferred on him under Sec. 80 of the Act and not om an interpretation of Sec. 76 of the Act, which mandates the levying of penalty of Rs, 100/- per every day of delay in filling the returns - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal by Revenue under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in ST Appeal Nos. 2/01 and 3/01 decided on 26.09.2003.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal's reliance on an earlier order in Sunitha Shetty Vs. CCE, Bangalore was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal reproduced a portion of the earlier order in the impugned order. The Revenue had challenged the earlier order before the Court, which was disposed of on 14.09.2004. The Court's judgment in the matter was reported in 2004 (174) ELT 313 (Kar). The Court found that the Commissioner had proceeded on an erroneous impression regarding the levy of penalty. The Commissioner's review of the order was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal, which held that the Deputy Commissioner had properly exercised discretion under Sec. 80 of the Act, not Sec. 76. The Tribunal concluded that the question of law had been answered against the Revenue in a previous case, and hence, the appeal was dismissed as unnecessary.

2. The crux of the case lay in the similarity of facts with the earlier case of Sunitha Shetty. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the previous judgment, which had already resolved the legal question in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no need to revisit the same legal issue, as it had already been settled against the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not warrant further consideration based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of precedent and legal interpretation in tax matters. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the principles established in a previous case, emphasizing consistency and adherence to legal interpretations. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the application of legal principles already addressed in a prior judgment, showcasing the significance of legal precedents in shaping decisions in tax disputes.