COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. Vs. AXIALO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (223) E.L.T. 454 (Tribunal)] holding that no duty is leviable in respect of grinding room/enclosure as it is part and parcel of immovable property. The Assessee did not dispute the duty and liability on the manufacture of grinding equipments and parts thereof. They were only seeking waiver with regard to the grinding room/enclosure. They contended that the grinding room/enclosure is sound proof enclosure it is constructed of MS Square Tubes, MS Outer Surface and perforated inner surface. The gap between the inner and the outer surface are filled with mineral wool which absorbs the sound. The enclosure is provided with air ventilation and exhaust system. The Ventilation system is provided to supply air to the people working in the room/enclosure and also to have a comfortable environment in the said room/enclosure. Therefore, they contended that it becomes an immovable property as it cannot be removed and if it is removed it becomes a waste.

(2.) The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as under:

(3.) In this appeal the Revenue is not challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the grinding room /enclosure is part and parcel of the immovable property and no duty is leviable thereon. Therefore, the duty levied has to be proportionately reduced. Therefore, the contention that without reducing the duty amount the penalty could not be imposed on the face of it is incorrect. However, the Tribunal reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that the Assessee being young entrepreneur that they were eligible for seeking exemptions as well as for waiver of duty. In those circumstances it was held that the imposition of maximum penalty in law would not be proper and therefore it was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty is illegal and requires to be interfered with. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.