2018 (2) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 209 of the CER 1944 - Held that - it appears that cross-appeal was also filed by the respondent-assesssee where the impugned order was upheld - In appeal, the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of HANILA ERA TEXTILES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA 2010 (9) TMI 202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT upheld the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original not levying penalty under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not ordering recovery amount by execution of B-17 bond.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was filed against Order-in-Original No. 17/08-09 dated 30/09/2008, with the department's grievance being that the adjudicating authority did not levy penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and did not order the recovery amount by executing the B-17 bond by the respondent. The record indicated that a cross-appeal was also filed by the respondent-assessee, and the impugned order was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay [2010 (259) ELT 24 (Bom.)] and the Supreme Court [2011 (270) ELT A156 (SC)]. Given that both the High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal found no reason to interfere, as it was sustained by following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal, comprising Justice Dr. Satish Chandra and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical), dismissed the appeal filed by the department. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, emphasizing the finality of the decision based on the previous rulings of the higher courts.