Commissioner Central Excise Customs & Service Tax vs M/S Uniform Synthetics Opponents

We have heard Mr. Hriday Buch, learned standing counsel appearing for Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax department on the following proposed substantial questions of law. “[A] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has correctly decided to give benefit of section 11AC of the Customs Act, 1962 and reducing the penalty to 25%?

[B] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s Dharmendra Textiles, (2000) 231 ELT 3 (SC), the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in relying upon its earlier decision rendered in the case of Swati Chemicals & Others v/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, 2009 (94) RLT 684 (CESTAT)?”

2.0 The respondent had already paid the entire amount of duty of Rs.2,08,122/­ and penalty amount of Rs.1,16,244/­, therefore, the Tribunal has dispensed with the condition of pre­deposit of the balance amount of penalty and had proceeded to decide the appeal on merits with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant.

3.0 The only prayer of the respondent before the Tribunal was that penalty be reduced to 25% of the amount in terms of proviso to Section 11AC by extending option to them inasmuch as no option was given either by the original adjudicating authority or by the Commissioner (Appeals). The departmental representative accepted the view of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, to us it appears to be a consent order. In this view of the matter, since there was no contest of demand of duty of 100%, the option was exercised by the assessee to deposit 25% within 30 days, and, therefore, the Tribunal has reduced penalty to 25% of the duty and it has further recording findings that the appellant before the Tribunal had already deposited penalty to the tune of Rs.1,16,244 which was more than 25%, and, therefore, the benefit was extended to the respondent assessee and the stay petition as well as appeal were disposed of.

4.0 In view of the consensus given by the departmental representative, we do not find that the questions raised by the appellant in this Tax Appeal raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, this Tax Appeal is not required to be entertained.

5.0 Accordingly, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.

Amit [V. M. SAHAI, J.] [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]