2015 (8) TMI 1176 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of notification - whether Intravenous Fluids having a therapeutic value stood covered under Exemption Notification No. 3/2001 - Held that - Decision in the case of Uniflex Cables Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, Surat-II 2011 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA followed - CESTAT has rightly set aside the order of imposition of penalty. No case to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of notification leading to penalty imposition under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 35(G)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the Revenue challenged an order by the CESTAT which dismissed the appeal and set aside the imposition of penalty. The CESTAT held that the matter involved the interpretation of a notification, thus ruling out the question of penalty. The appellant's counsel referred to a decision by the Apex Court in a similar case to support their argument. The Commissioner, in the original order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs while confirming the duty demand, noting that the issue was interpretational in nature. The Commissioner found no substantial evidence implicating the appellant in knowingly dealing with excisable goods without duty payment. Given the interpretational nature of the case and lack of concrete evidence, the court concluded that no penalty should have been imposed, quashing both the Commissioner's and Tribunal's penalty orders. The judgment emphasized that penalties should not be levied in cases of interpretational nature, aligning with the precedent set by the Apex Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the CESTAT's decision to set aside the penalty imposition order.