High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 04 P&H CK 0042

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate vs Hawkins Cookers Ltd.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 April 2013 · Citation: (2013) 22 GSTR 345

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ritu Bahri, J · Hemant Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
Central Excise Appeal No. 42 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 321 words

Hemant Gupta, J.—The Revenue is in appeal u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the "Act") aggrieved against the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal"), setting aside the penalty imposed as a consequence of payment of duty of four per cent. on parts of pressure cookers till September, 2002. As per the tariff plan notified, parts of pressure cookers were liable to duty at 16 per cent. but vide the notification dated March 1, 2002, the concessional rate of duty at four per cent. was contemplated. This exemption was withdrawn vide the notification dated April 27, 2002 but the assessee continued to pay the duty at the concessional rate till September, 2002. The assessee has paid the amount of duty along with interest when the mistake came to their notice. The adjudicating authority has imposed the penalty for paying less amount of duty even after withdrawal of the exemption vide the notification dated April 27, 2002. But in an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 1 lakh which amount has been set aside by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the present appeal. It has been found by the Tribunal that it was a case of inadvertent mistake and that there was no intention to evade the duty and therefore there is no case for imposition of the penalty.

2.

We find that the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. The assessee was entitled to exemption by virtue of the notification dated March 1, 2002. The said notification was withdrawn on April 27, 2002. The non-payment of duty for some time after withdrawal of exemption will not lead to finding of intentional evasion of duty.

3.

We do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.