9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 923 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the appeal - Reduction in the quantum of penalty - section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - In view of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, this appeal is liable for dismissal on the ground of non-prosecution of the appeal in terms of Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Quantum of penalty - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered against the appellant by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING WEAVING MILLS AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. LANCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that We completely fail to see how payment of the differential duty, whether before or after the show cause notice is issued, can alter the liability for penalty, the conditions for which are clearly spelled out in Section 11AC of the Act - the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits also. The appeal is dismissed both under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and on merits too.
Issues:
- Appeal against the order limiting penalty under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. - Non-appearance of the appellant during the hearing. - Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. - Upholding of penalty under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. - Merits of the case based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that limited the penalty under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 to ?15,97,932. Despite multiple hearing dates, the appellant failed to appear, leading to the consideration of dismissal under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty citing contravention of Act provisions with intent to evade duty, as per the impugned order. The appeal was found to be covered against the appellant by the decision in the Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing conditions for penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The non-appearance of the appellant on several scheduled hearing dates raised concerns, prompting consideration for dismissal under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Commissioner (Appeals) justified upholding the penalty under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 due to contravention of Act provisions with intent to evade duty. The decision in the Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case was cited to support the penalty imposition based on specific conditions outlined in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The dismissal of the appeal was deemed appropriate both for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and on merits as per the decision in the Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case. The appellant's failure to appear during multiple hearings, coupled with the upheld penalty under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision was pronounced in open court, finalizing the outcome based on the legal provisions and precedents cited in the judgment.
|
