Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central ... on 4 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd.,
Manali,
Chennai-600 068 .. Appellant
-vs-
The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-I,
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),
Chennai. .. Respondent
Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against
the order dated 16.02.2015 made in Final Order No.40170 of 2015 on the
file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South
Zonal Bench, Chennai-600 006.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Prasad
******
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal, by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section 35-G of
the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 16.02.2015,
made in Final Order No.40170 of 2015 on the file of the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai-600 006.
2.The appeal was admitted, on 06.10.2016, on the following
substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in
restoring levy of penalty u/s 11-AC of the Central Excise
Act, 1944, when the Section required positive evidence
of fraud and suppression of facts with intent to evade
payment of duty which was non-existent in the instant
case?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Hon'ble Custom, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in
restoring the levy of penalty under Rule 173-Q of the
Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the same was subject to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
the provisions of Section 11-AC of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 which required positive evidence of fraud and
suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty
and when the same was not established?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in
approaching the levy of penalty u/s 11-AC as that which
would stand attracted for mere civil infraction when the
same required intent to evade payment of duty? and
(iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in
concluding that the order of Commissioner of Central
Excise (Appeals) in deleting the penalty had no basis
when in fact, the deletion of penalty by the Ld. First
Appellate Authority was done only after taking notice of
the explanation offered by the appellants as recorded in
the order dated 10.10.2003 itself deleted the penalty?”
3.Heard Mr.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that Sabka
Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was issued in favour
of the assessee on 30.12.2019.
5.In the light of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in this
appeal and the same is closed. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
04.01.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
abr
To
1.The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-I,
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals),
Chennai.
2.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhawan Annexe, I Floor,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
R.N.Manjula, J.
(abr)
C.M.A.No.1945 of 2016
04.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
