COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. BRIGHT BROTHERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard both sides. We are of the view that the appeal raises substantial questions of law. It is admitted on the following three substantial questions of law.

(2.) Mr. A.S. Rao appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this appeal would submit that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the clear language of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable, at the relevant time. The language admits of no construction other than a mandate to impose penalty. Thus, this provision being mandatory, the Tribunal should have sustained the imposition of penalty which also should have been sustained because there was nothing unclear or unsettled about the legal position. The assessee knew that it had to take into account the amount received from M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "TELCO", for short), that was termed as an added consideration for the effort or job undertaken by the assessee on the moulds supplied by M/s. TELCO. In the circumstances, while sustaining the Order-in-Original, the Tribunal should not have deleted the penalty. That part of the Tribunal's order is contrary to law.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Anjali Hirawat appearing on behalf of the assessee would submit that the Tribunal's view is neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the issue was of re-quantification and did not justify imposition of penalty. The penalty has been rightly deleted.