2015 (11) TMI 318 - HC - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in negating the penalty on the respondent, Managing Director of the unit despite there was specific malafide role attributed to him - Held that - Tribunal has recorded that it is an admitted position as agreed by both the sides that the very same issues are covered on merits in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jayant Agro Organics Limited, 2003 (9) TMI 133 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Jayant Agro Organics Limited (supra) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby its earlier decision in the case of Jayant Agro Organics Limited (supra) has merely been applied to the facts of the present case. - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Substantial question of law regarding negating penalty on Managing Director - Justification of Tribunal's decision based on precedent - Confirmation of Tribunal's decision by Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai. The appeal was admitted based on a substantial question of law regarding the negation of penalty on the Managing Director despite specific malafide role attributed to him. However, the question was reformulated during the proceedings to focus on whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the respondent by relying solely on a previous case involving Jayant Agro Organics Ltd.

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, it was observed that the Tribunal had based its decision on the precedent set by the case of M/s Jayant Agro Organics Limited. The Tribunal found that the issues were similar and ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals. The respondent's counsel highlighted a Supreme Court decision confirming the Tribunal's ruling in the Jayant Agro Organics case, further supporting the justification of the Tribunal's decision in the present case.

Considering the confirmation of the Tribunal's decision by the Supreme Court and the application of the precedent to the current case, it was concluded that there was no legal question of significance to warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly.