COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GOODWILL ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Appeals challenge the orders dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT") in the Appeals filed by the Respondents above named. By the said orders penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevities sake hereinafter called as "the said Rules") imposed upon the Respondents in each of the Appeals has been set aside.

(2.) SINCE the questions of law raised in both the above Appeals are overlapping and common, the above Appeals are heard together. The questions of law are reproduced herein under :- Appeal No.53 of 2005 :-

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order in original the Respondents herein as well as the said Lalit Products preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The said appeal was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 16-08-2001 on account non-compliance of pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F. It appears that the department proceeded for recovery of the said amount of duty. The Respondents herein thereafter filed a further Appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Mumbai being Appeal No.E/1925/2000. The said Appeals came to be allowed by the CESTAT by its orders, both dated 12.08.2004. The gist of the reasoning of the CESTAT was that the Respondents could not be said to have been in the knowledge of the fact that the goods were liable for confiscation on the grounds of ineligibility of SSI exemption of the manufacturer. The CESTAT was of the view that Rule 209A of the said Rules postulates mens-rea on the part of the party, which according to the Tribunal in the instant case was missing. The CESTAT therefore came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the order in original cannot be sustained. However, so far as redemption fine imposed on the Respondents Vinay Electricals is concerned, the CESTAT did not go into the said aspect as the said issue was not pressed by the said Respondents. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 12.08.2004, which is challenged by way of the above Petition.