9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reduction of penalty imposed under Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules - substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C.M.A. NO. 1186 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 28.4.06, admitted the appeal on the following subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner also fixed the penalty at ₹ 37,818/= under Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Rules. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee/respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide order dated 30.1.04, reduced the penalty to ₹ 5,000/=. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Department filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, on consideration of the case, upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), against which the present appeal is filed by the Department/appellant. 4. Heard Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Department/appellant. Though notice has been served, there is no representation for the respondent. 5. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996-1997 wherein Section 11-AC of the Act was introduced and therein the position was made clear that there is no scope for any discretion. This Court also referred to Para 136 of the Union Budget in which reference was made to the provisions stating that the levy of penalty is a mandatory penalty and that in notes on clauses also the similar indication has been given. 8. After considering all the aspects concerned, this Court finally held that the plea that Rule 96-ZQ and Rule 96-ZO have a concept of discretion inbuilt cannot be sustained meaning thereby that the said Rules are mandatory and there is no discretion available for reducing the penalty. The provisions of Rule 96-ZP being identical and in pari materia with that of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
