(1.) These two cases are being disposed of by a common judgment, since identical questions are involved in these cases. Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2006 has been filed by the revenue. By means of this appeal, the revenue has challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), dated 14-9-2005, whereby the penalty was reduced to one lac. According to the Excise Tribunal, the minimum penalty should have been 100% of the excise duty leviable and reliance in this regard was placed on Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules.
(2.) CWP No. 4531 of 2009 was filed by the assessee whereby the assessee has challenged the ultra vires of Rule 96ZO. Reliance on behalf of the assessee is placed on the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bansal Alloys and Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2010 260 ELT 343(P&H), in which the rival contentions noticed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as follows:
(3.) Reference may be made to Section 37 of the Excise Act which empowers the Central Government to make rules and Rule 96ZO, which is under challenge in this Court: