Dismissed

commissioner of central excise service tax v. glaxo flash courier Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2012CEXA/164/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Central Excise Appeal, the Division Bench addressed whether the Tribunal justified reducing a service tax penalty below the statutory minimum despite a Larger Bench decision. The Court affirmed that a Division Bench is bound by a Larger Bench holding the field and referred to prior precedents regarding penalty reduction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

commissioner of central excise service tax Vs glaxo flash… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

kvm

CEXA164.06

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2006

¶7

The Commissioner Service Tax ..... Appellant Versus Blaze Flash Courier Private Ltd. ..... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly for the Appellant.

¶9

Mr. H. G. Dharmadhikari for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &

¶11

R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

This Appeal was admitted on 25^th April, 2007 on the following questions of

¶14

law :-

¶15

(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the reduction of penalty by CESTAT vide impugned order No. A/759, 760/WSB/05-CII dtd. 20/07/05 to 10% penalty imposed by adjudicating authority, the reduction in penalty amount by Tribunal vide above said order which was less than the minimum of Rs.100/- per day for every day during which the failure of payment of service tax continued, as provided for under the provision of Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994, and upheld by the Tribunal Northern Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s.ETA Engineering holding that imposing penalty was justified ?

¶16

(2) Whether is it correct that once the law is settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, a Division Bench can ignore the same without giving any finding as to how the decision of the Larger Bench was not

kvm

CEXA164.06

applicable to the case ? On the contrary the Division Bench had satisfied itself that there was a case for imposing penalty. In that situation the said Division Bench was bound to follow the law settled by Larger Bench of the same Tribunal. In this regard, the law has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of C.Ex. v/s. Ramesh Food Product that smaller bench is bound to follow the decision of the larger bench which holds the field, vide para-7, 2004 (174) ELT 310 (SC).

¶21

On account of the delay in paying the service tax, penalty was imposed upon the assessee upon the assessee. On appeal filed by the assessee the Tribunal sustained the penalty to the extent of 10%. Similar order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vs. S.R. Enterprises reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 123(Bom) wherein this Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in reducing the penalty. For the reasons stated therein the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶22

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

¶23

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

commissioner of central excise service tax v. glaxo flash courier Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

commissioner of central excise service tax v. glaxo flash courier Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rex Polyextrusion Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtr and 3 Ors.

Ameyas Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Formerly Ameya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ajay B Garg, and Anr.

Union of India Vs Mr Vinod Lath

thcommissioner of central excise-thane-i Vs m/s amber procesors a division of m/s piiramal spinning and wvg. mills Ltd.

the commissioner of central excise,mum-v Vs m/s encee dyeing and printing works

commissioner ofcentral excise mumbai-iii Vs m/s johnsons and johnson Ltd.