An appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging an order regarding penalty deposit. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the deposit was made soon after the appeal order, and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CEA No.89 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CEA No.89 of 2011 Date of decision: 09.11.2011
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -II
….Appellant
Vs.
M/s Allenger Medical System Ltd. Bathinda
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL)
Mr.Sharma has filed an affidavit of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh –II in terms of earlier order dated 13.10.2011 passed by this court. As per the said affidavit, the order passed by the Commissioner was dispatched by speed post vide receipt No.805/77811039 dated 04.05.2009. The penalty has been deposited on 02.06.2009 to avail the benefit of concession as contemplated in proviso to Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the assessee was bound to deposit the amount of penalty within one month in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is contrary to law.
The assessee has deposited the amount soon after the order was passed in appeal. Keeping in view the said fact and the amount involved, we do not find that present is the case which requires adjudication
CEA No.89 of 2011
2
as to whether the penalty was required to be deposited soon after the order was passed by the adjudicating authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
09.11.2011 Sailesh/vimal
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the case involves a substantial question of law regarding the time limit for depositing penalty under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -II
M/s Allenger Medical System Ltd. Bathinda
Hemant Gupta
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
