Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIO versus M/S VIMAL ALLOYS LTD., AMLOH ROAD, VILLA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Central Excise Commissio v. M/S Vimal Alloys Ltd., Amloh Road, Villa - CEA-129-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10423 (13 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.E.A. No.129 of 2006

Date of decision: November 20, 2006

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

-----Appellant

Vs.

M/s Karan Processors, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.

-----Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

-----

ORDER:

This appeal has been preferred under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, "the Act") by revenue against the order dated 26.08.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing following substantial question of law:- "Whether the provisions relating to mandatory penalty under Rule 96ZQ 5(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, that reads "equal to an amount of duty outstanding or rupees five thousand, whichever is greater", can be interpreted to give discretion in the hand of adjudicating/appellate authority."

We have already held in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s K.C. Alloys & Steel Castings, Ludhiana, C.E.A. No.77 of 2005, decided on 03.08.2006 that imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not the minimum but is at the discretion of the authorities. The discretion, having been exercised in a given fact situation, is not shown to be perverse.

Accordingly, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

November 20, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.