w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

CCE, Pondicherry v/s M/s. Sharadha Castings Ltd

    E/1431 of 2004 & E/CO/24 of 2010

    Decided On, 29 July 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai


    Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Venkatachalam, Adv., for the Respondent.

Judgment Text

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the reduction of the penalty upon the assessees under the provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that the penalty equal to the outstanding duty is prescribed under the rule and this is a mandatory penalty. The cross-objection has been filed by the assessees on the ground that the abatement claims have been disallowed by the Dy. Commissioner while it is only the Commissioner who has empowered under the law to decide such claims.

2. I have heard both sides. I find that the statutory provisions viz., Section 3 (a) (4) of the Central Excise Rules prescribe that the Commissioner shall decide the claims for abatement. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and remit the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner, who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasona

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ble opportunity of hearing to the assessees. The cross-objection is also allowed by way of remand.