2018 (9) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal, for the Respondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 28th May, 2014 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is a common order, which allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed an equivalent penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules). 4. Both the Revenue as well as Respondent filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. The Respondent's grievance was that no penalty is imposable when the Assessments are provisional while the Revenue's grievance was that the order of the Commissioner did not confiscate the land and building under Rule 173Q of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal, no occasion to impose any penalty or confiscation of plant and machinery would arise. 6. Mr. Bangur, learned Counsel in support of the Appeal submits that the Revenue does not dispute proposition that no penalty is imposable, if the Assessments are provisional. However, it is the case of the Revenue that the Assessment were not provisional and the impugned order of the Tribunal was not jus....