2010 (12) TMI 1042 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable on the grounds that the appeals filed by the appellants is supported by an undated Review Order without the date - it was alleged that the assessee contravened Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and failed to pay the requisite duty - demand of duty was sustained but demand of interest was set aside on the ground that there was neither any proposal for demand of interest in the Show Cause Notice nor quantification of interest amount was made in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) also set aside penalty of 10, 000/-. Appeal of the revenue to the Tribunal has been dismissed as not maintainable appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification of dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
3. Allegations of contravention of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and failure to pay requisite duty.
4. Sustaining demand of duty but setting aside demand of interest and penalty.
5. Dismissal of appeal based on the insignificance of the penalty amount involved.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law proposed was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to issues with the undated Review Order lacking proper justification for finding the Order-in-Appeal not legal and proper. The Review Order was based on committee opinions and signatures of Commissioners, leading to the need for appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The assessee, a manufacturer of Brake Linings availing CENVAT Credit facilities, was accused of contravening Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and failing to pay the required duty. After a Show Cause Notice and subsequent Order-in-Original, the demand of duty was upheld, but the demand of interest was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of proposal and quantification in the original documents. Additionally, a penalty of &8377;10,000/- was also set aside.

3. The dismissal of the appeal was challenged by the revenue, arguing that the Tribunal should have allowed rectification of defects and considered the case on its merits. However, the court found that the penalty amount involved was only &8377;10,000/-, and the interest amount was not quantified or significant. As a result, the court did not see sufficient grounds to delve into the matter on its merits, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on the insignificance of the penalty amount involved, thereby upholding the decision of the Tribunal to not maintain the appeal. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of quantification and significance of the interest amount, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal by the revenue.