The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III v. M/s. Kirloskar Penumatics Co. Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We have heard the parties on the question and we have also perused the impugned order. The Commissioner, after considering the record passed the order. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find no reason as to why the penalty was…
Judgment
Mrs.N.V.Masurkar with Mr.Parag Vyas for the Appellant Mr.Prakash Shah i/b.PDS Legal for the respondent. Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. S.R.Sathe, JJ. Dated : 16th August, 2007 Dated : 16th August, 2007 Dated : 16th August, 2007 P.C.
The Revenue has framed the following questions. a) Whether CESTAT was justified in setting aside the demand of interest confirmed by Commissioner, Central Excise under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944? b) Whether CESTAT was justified in setting aside penalty levied under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? -2- c) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, CESTAT was justified in holding that the charge of supression is not established.?
We have heard the parties on the question and we have also perused the impugned order. The Commissioner, after considering the record passed the order. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find no reason as to why the penalty was imposed.
In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for reconsideration according to law.
3. Appeal accordingly is allowed with no order as to costs.
We make it clear that all points are kept open for consideration by the Tribunal. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) -3- (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.) (S.R.Sathe, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Aug 2007. The bench was F I REBELLO, S R SATHE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.