2017 (6) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - the Revenue has filed this appeal in casual manner which is not permissible and it is an abuse of process of law, therefore, the appeal for the period April 1998 to June 1998 is dismissed. Interest and penalty are not imposable on the appellant, and is set aside. Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against confirmed demands for two periods
- Maintainability of appeal for the period April 1998 to June 1998
- Liability to pay duty for the period September 1997 to March 1998
- Imposition of interest and penalty

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against confirmed demands for two periods. Initially, demands were upheld against the respondent for the periods September 1997 to March 1998 and April 1998 to June 1998. The respondent challenged the adjudication order before the Ld. Commissioner (A), resulting in the orders confirming the demands being set aside. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal for the period April 1998 to June 1998, and the department accepted this decision. However, the appeal for the period September 1997 to March 1998 was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals), who dropped the demand. Dissatisfied, the Revenue filed two appeals, one for each period.

Regarding the appeal for the period April 1998 to June 1998, the Tribunal found it to be not maintainable due to a previous dismissal of a similar appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal deemed this appeal as an abuse of process of law and dismissed it accordingly. For the period September 1997 to March 1998, the Tribunal held that the appellant is liable to pay duty based on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case. Consequently, the demand for duty was confirmed for this period.

In terms of interest and penalty, the Tribunal ruled that they are not imposable on the appellant, citing a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in another case. Therefore, the demands for interest and penalty were set aside. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the pronouncement made in the open court.