2015 (10) TMI 2274 - AT - Central Excise

Justification of appeals filed by the Revenue - Non imposition of penalty - Held that - On perusal of the impugned order, penalty on all the respondents have already been imposed by the adjudicating authority and by filing these appeals against these respondents by the Revenue, no specific relief has been sought. I have also perused the order of the Committee of Commissioners advising to file appeal before this Tribunal and on perusal of the said Review order, I find that Committee of Commissioners has not proposed to file appeals against these respondents. Despite that, appeals have been filed against the respondents. I have also perused the appeal memorandum. There is no prayer in the appeal memos. Appeals filed by the Revenue seek no relief against these respondents. I do not understand why these appeals have been filed before this Tribunal when there is no proposal by the Committee of Commissioners to file these appeals before this Tribunal against the respondents nor any relief has been sought in the appeals against the respondents during the course of arguments. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty and demand of Cenvat Credit against various companies.
2. Non-imposition of penalty on the principal respondent.
3. Inadvertent filing of appeals by the Revenue against certain respondents without seeking specific relief.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the imposition of penalties and demand of Cenvat Credit against multiple companies. The impugned order confirmed Cenvat Credit demand against M/s. Auto Tech Engineers and directed them to pay the balance amount along with interest. A penalty was imposed on M/s. Auto Tech Engineers under various rules. Penalties were also imposed on M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company, M/s. Ayushi Steel Co. (P) Ltd., and M/s. Kanika Strips (P) Ltd. under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, proceedings against certain directors were dropped.

2. The Revenue was aggrieved by the impugned order for not imposing a penalty on the principal respondent. The learned AR argued that penalties had been imposed inadvertently and sought time to explain. Despite penalties already being imposed, the Revenue filed appeals without seeking any specific relief against the respondents. The Tribunal noted that no relief was sought in the appeal memos against the respondents, questioning the rationale behind filing the appeals.

3. The judgment highlighted the inadvertent filing of appeals by the Revenue against certain respondents without any relief being sought. The Tribunal observed that the appeals only increased the workload without merit, wasting valuable time. The learned AR's request to withdraw the appeals was denied, emphasizing the duty to assist the Court properly. Despite the learned AR's attempt to reiterate certain grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to the lack of relief sought against the respondents and the unnecessary burden on the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to penalties, Cenvat Credit demands, and the inadvertent filing of appeals without seeking specific relief, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.