2017 (2) TMI 1041

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3) The respondent-a Limited Company is engaged in the manufacture of parts of Railways and Tramways stock classifiable under Chapter 86 including smoothing Reactors falling under Chapter 85.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent also undertakes the activity of modification/up-gradation of old Smoothing Reactors received from the Railways. 4) During the course of modification, the weight of copper coil in the old smoothing reactors is increased by adding new copper coil to the existing old copper coil. 5) It was, however, observed by the authority concerned that the respondent manufactured copper coils from the copper strips and used them capatively in the up-gradation of smoothing reactors. The responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case, at best, nominal amount of penalty could be levied on the respondent but not the one imposed. 9) By impugned order dated 05.11.2003, the Tribunal partly allowed the respondent's appeal and reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 2,06,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. It is against this order, the Revenue has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 10) Heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. 11) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(Revenue) while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of this Court rendered in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 329 and Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 361. Their Lordships examined the issue in detail and held that the law laid down in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) is not correct whereas the law laid down in the case of SEBI (supra) is correct. The following observations of Their Lordships are apposite which reads as under: "15. The stand of learned counsel for the assessee is that the absence of specific reference to mens rea is a case of casus omissus. If the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is accepted that the use of the expression "assessee shall be liable" proves the existence of disc....