CCE Vs. MEWAR STEEL FORGING AND FOUNDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal is whether the Additional Collector who adjudicated the matter and confirmed the demand should have imposed penalty on the respondents.

(2.) SHRI Ashok Kumar, learned JDR submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z.B. Nagarkar v. U.O.I. 1999 (89) ECR 29 (SC) has held that it appears from the examination of Rule 173Q that apart from the offending goods which are liable to confiscation the person concerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in the Rule. It is difficult to accept the argument of the appellant that levy of penalty is discretionary. He, therefore, contended that the Additional Collector was required to have imposed the penalty in this matter.

(3.) SHRI J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the respondents had also filed Appeal No. 2817/92B against the impugned order and their appeal has been finally disposed of Vide Final Order No. E/3/95 -B1 dated 5.12.94. The Tribunal vide the said order held that the demand prior to 12.9.89 is time barred and demand for the period from 12.9.89 to 20.12.89 is confirmed. The demand was held to be time barred as the charge of suppression could not be sustained against the respondents. Learned Advocate also drew our attention to the specific mention in the said order that no penalty has been imposed on the appellants. He also submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Z.B. Nagarkar v. UOI and Ors. (supra), relying upon the decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, has observed that the entire system of administrative adjudication where under quasi -judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings.