High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Central Excise Commissio v. M/S Vimal Alloys Ltd., Amloh Road, Villa - CEA-129-2006  RD-P&H 10423 (13 November 2006)
C.E.A. No.129 of 2006
Date of decision: November 20, 2006
Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar.
M/s Karan Processors, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
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 )
November 20, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.