9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was examined by this Tribunal in BSL Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2016 (6) TMI 74 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein it was held that Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes [2013 (12) TMI 1397 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], no longer remains good law and therefore, can no longer be followed while the law laid down by Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajshree Dyg. & Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner [2014 (9) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], becomes good and binding law to be followed - benefit of reduced mandatory penalty cannot be extended to the appellants. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/814/2009 - A/61702/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Rajni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal in the case of Delhi Tourism Transportation Dev. Corpn. Vs. CCE, Delhi-I 2007 (7) S.T.R. 202 (Tri. Del.). Alternatively, he pleaded, that if a penalty was to be imposed, they should be given an option of paying 25% of the duty as penalty, because the Adjudicating Authority did not give such an option. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad -III- 2013 (296) E.L.T. 327 (Guj.). 4. The Ld. A.R. stated that it was a clear case of suppression since four summons were issued to the appellant between 28.02.2006 and 25.07.2007 to appear before the investigating officers, which they did not comply. It was only on 16.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lare the same in ST-3 returns. It is therefore evident that the appellants have resorted to suppression with an intent to evade service tax. As for the plea of the appellants that there were calculation errors and change of duty, given the above finding of deliberate suppression, the plea of calculation errors and bona fide mistake is not tenable. In any event, it was responsibility to the appellants to calculate and apply the rate correctly. In the case of Delhi Tourism and Transportation (supra) cited by the party, the penalty was not imposed as the appellants in that case was a public sector undertaking, which is not the case in the instant appeal. Therefore, the penalty has been correctly upheld by the First Appellate Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Metals Tubes (supra ), and differed therefrom. We agree that that would not render Gujarat High Court order invalid as one High Court cannot overrule judgment of another High Court. But in the case of CCE, Surat v. Rajeshree Dyg. Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. [2014 (305) E.L.T. 442 (Guj.)] passed by Gujarat High Court after the judgment in the case of Ratnamani Metals Tubes (supra). Gujarat High Court itself changed its view and in effect held a view similar to that held by Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CST-II v. Top Security Ltd. (supra). Review petition against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court as reported in E.L.T. quoted below :- Penalty - Tribunal not justify in extending benefit of reduced penalty of 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. Even after passing of order by the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the demand and interest, the assessee did not pay any amount. [Rajshree Dyg. Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2016 (332) E.L.T. A41 (S.C.)]. In the foregoing circumstances, Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Ratnamani Metals Tubes (supra), no longer remains good law and therefore, can no longer be followed while the law laid down by Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajshree Dyg. Ptg. Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra) , and Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CST-II v. Top Security Ltd. (supra) , becomes good and binding law to be followed. In the light of the above, the benefit of reduced mandatory penalty cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
