By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAY 12, 2014: IN the year 2007 the CCE, Aurangabad had filed an appeal in the CESTAT against an order of the Commissioner(A) since the equivalent penalty imposed by the Commr.(A) u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 fell short by a princely sum of Rs.11/- (Rupees Eleven only). Inasmuch as the differential duty of Rs.5011/- was not contested by the assessee and the adjudicating authority had imposed penalty of Rs.5011/- but the Commissioner (A) without any discussion had brought this amount down to Rs.5000/-.

When the matter came before the Bench after almost three years in January, 2010, the Member (Judicial) had simply said - I am of the view that the prayer for enhancement of penalty by Rs.11/- is not worth considering, and dismissed the appeal.

We reported this case as - 2010-TIOL-149-CESTAT-MUM.

Obviously, for filing this Eleven rupee appeal, the Department must have spent in thousands but then how could one allow the Commissioner(A) the discretion to reduce the mandatory penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944? After all, it was blasphemy! He could not have belittled the most potent section available!As the department puts it - It is not the money involved but the law that is to be implemented in letter & spirit.

After we reported this decision, many pink and white and yellow newspapers picked it up and carried front page news items with imprudent captions aimed at mocking the way the government department functions and with the sole intention of increasing readership.

Be that as it may, here is one more such case where the CCE, Pune-II had filed an appeal way back in the year 2004 against an order passed by the Commissioner(A) setting aside the demand of Rs.462/- and the penalty imposed of Rs.500/-.

The appeal was heard recently by the Division Bench of the CESTAT.

And the Bench without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the department stating that ‘negligible' amount of Revenue is involved in the matter.

Interestingly, it is not forthcoming from the order as to who represented the Revenue or for that matter, the Respondent, who incidentally is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board !

In passing: Isn't it time that a stock is taken of such monetarily slim appeals filed by the Department over the years keeping in mind the instructions issued by the Board through F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC(dated 17.08.2011) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 35R of the CEA, 1944 and the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT, Bangalore vs. Ranka & Ranka - 2012-TIOL-178-HC-KAR-IT holding that the circular is applicable to the pending cases also. If this exercise is done, it is certain that the pendency levels in the Tribunal would come down to manageable proportions.

(See 2014-TIOL-747-CESTAT-MUM)