Appellate Tribunal remands penalty imposition case to High Court for rule validity determination.Penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ (5) - The vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) are pending before the Court as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 27 of their judgment in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor - Held that the consequence of the said judgment is that the challenge to vires to Rule 96ZQ(5) stands revived before the High Court - All the appeals are allowed by way of remand... ... ... Issues involved:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 96ZQ

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Rule 96ZQ. The advocate for the appellants highlighted that the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) were pending before the Court, as noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous judgment. The Tribunal also acknowledged the Supreme Court's latest ruling in another case, which indicated that the challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) was revived before the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the High Court for a decision on the vires of the rule.

The Tribunal, considering that the penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) was the sole issue in the appeal, set aside the impugned order and sent the case back to the Original Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to determine the imposition and quantum of the penalty after the High Court's declaration on the challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5). It was clarified that the appellant could raise any additional issues before the adjudicating authorities. Ultimately, all the appeals were allowed through remand, awaiting the decision on the vires of the rule. Penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ (5) - The vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) are pending before the Court as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 27 of their judgment in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor - Held that the consequence of the said judgment is that the challenge to vires to Rule 96ZQ(5) stands revived before the High Court - All the appeals are allowed by way of remand CCE Surat & others Versus M/s. Bhavna Silk Mills P. Ltd. others
Central Excise
2010 (12) TMI 160 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - TMI
CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - AT
Dated:- 15-12-2010
E/598 , 605/03 & E/304/06 - -
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy For Appellant's:- Shri J.S. Negi, Shri R.S Srova For Respondent's:- Shri K.I. Vyas Date of Decision:15.12.10 Per: MR. B.S.V. Murthy: The issue involved in all the appeals is regarding imposition of penalty in terms of provisions of Rule 96ZQ. Ld. Advocate Shri Suriyanarayanan appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) are pending before the Court as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 27 of their judgment in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their latest judgment in the case of UOI vs. Krishna Processors reported in 2009-TIOL-62-SC-CX, after taking note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors, has held that the consequence of the said judgment is that the challenge to vires to Rule 96ZQ(5) stands revived before the High Court. Accordingly, the matter remanded to the High Court for deciding the question of vires to the above Rule. 2. As the only issue involved in the present appeal is the penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ (5), we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority to decide upon the question of imposition of penalty and quantum thereof, after declaration of law by the Hon'ble High Court on the challenge to vires of Rule 96ZQ(5). However, we make it clear that appellant would be at liberty to raise the issue if any before the adjudicating authorities. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2010 (12) TMI 160