Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL EX versus M/S NATIONAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS, MALERK

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner, Central Excise, Central Ex v. M/s National Steel Rolling Mills, Malerk - CEA-185-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 7526 (21 September 2006)

CEA No.185 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CEA No.185 of 2005

Date of decision: 7.9.2006

Commissioner, Central Excise, Central Excise House, F- Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana (Punjab)

...Appellant

v.

M/s National Steel Rolling Mills, Malerkotla Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab).

...Respondent

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

Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Central Govt. counsel for the appellant.

JUDGMENT:

On request, preponed to today.

This appeal has been preferred proposing following substantial questions of law:-

"i) Whether any discretion is left with the adjudicating authority/appellate authority to reduce the penalty prescribed under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?"

ii) Whether penalty imposed under Rule 96ZP(3) upon a manufacturer of hot rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of CEA No.185 of 2005 2

1986) and who had opted to pay under Section 3A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 but failed to pay the whole of the amount payable for any month by the 10th of such

month, is mandatory or discretionary in nature? The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- having regard to facts and circumstances of the case.

In our judgment dated 2.8.2006 rendered in CEA No.77 of 2005 (Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s K.C.Alloys & Steel Castings, Ludhiana), we have held that penalty prescribed under Rule 96ZP(3) 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

September 7, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal)

'gs' 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.