Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate vs AVS Brake Lining Pvt. Ltd.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the revenue u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the

Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.3.2009 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:

Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable on the grounds that the appeals filed by the Appellants is

supported by an undated Review Order without the date even being put by the learned Commissioner under their signature and the Review Order

does not disclose why the Order-in-Appeal was found to be not legal and proper whereas the fact is that for the purpose of filing appeal, a clear

opinion was formed by the members of the committee on the note sheet, firstly by the Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-III on 06.02.2007 and

further assented to by another Commissioner, namely, Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak on 12.02.2007 by affixing his signature next to the

signature of the Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-III and the Committee of Commissioners has passed the Review Order that the Order-in-

Appeal No. 13/NS/GGN/2007 dated 11.01.2007 was not legal and proper and the same was required to be appealed against before the learned

Tribunal after having examined the case records of the said Order in-Appeal?

The Assessee is a manufacturer of Brake Linings and is availing CENVAT Credit facilities under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. During scrutiny

of return for the months of September and October, 2004, it was alleged that the Assessee contravened Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

and failed to pay the requisite duty. After issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 7.2.2005, Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2005 was passed

against the Assessee. On appeal, demand of duty was sustained but demand of interest was set aside on the ground that there was neither any

proposal for demand of interest in the Show Cause Notice nor quantification of interest amount was made in the Order-in-Original. The

Commissioner (Appeals) also set C.E.A. No. 173 of 2009 aside penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal of the revenue to the Tribunal has been

dismissed as not maintainable.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and should have

allowed the Appellant to rectify the defects.

We are unable to accept the submission. Even if we assume that the Tribunal should have gone into the merits of the case, we find that the

amount of penalty involved is only Rs. 10,000/-and on the question of interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that there was

no proposal to levy interest in the Show Cause Notice nor quantification of the amount in the order. We asked learned Counsel for the Appellant

as to how much was the amount of interest. He was unable to point out the same except stating that it could not be a significant amount. The

amount of penalty involved is only Rs. 10,000/-.

In view of above, the amount being insignificant, we do not find any ground to go into the matter on merits.

The appeal is dismissed.