2000 (1) TMI 657 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of fabrics and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) and other rules - Delay in filing appeal by one party - Application of Delhi High Court judgment - Conflict between Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court judgments.

Delay in filing appeal by Ratankumar Agrawal:
The delay in filing the appeal by Ratankumar Agrawal, due to a previous joint appeal, is condoned by the tribunal. The joint appeal was filed against the confiscation of fabrics from Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and imposition of penalty on both the assessee and Ratankumar Agrawal. Ratankumar Agrawal subsequently filed a separate appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, which was taken up for hearing with the consent of the departmental representative.

Confiscation of fabrics and imposition of penalty:
The appeals were made against the confiscation of fabrics from Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and the imposition of penalty on both the assessee and Ratankumar Agrawal for not paying duty on processed fabrics. Both parties agreed to set aside the confiscation and penalty by applying the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, despite the departmental representative's argument that the decision was under appeal to the Supreme Court, which had not stayed or set it aside.

Application of Delhi High Court judgment:
The tribunal applied the Delhi High Court judgment, emphasizing that penalty is not part of assessment proceedings but an additional tax, as held in previous cases. The tribunal rejected the argument that the Gujarat High Court judgments in Maheshwari Silk Mills and Ujagar Prints should be applied, citing conflicts with the Delhi High Court judgment and the subsequent amendment of the 1957 Act incorporating penal provisions.

Conflict between Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court judgments:
The tribunal analyzed the conflict between the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court judgments, concluding that the Gujarat High Court judgment is not in conflict with the Delhi High Court judgment followed by the tribunal. The tribunal considered various decisions and amendments to the 1957 Act, ultimately allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned order of confiscation and penalty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai highlights the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the confiscation of fabrics, the application of the Delhi High Court judgment, and the conflict between the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court judgments, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved.