The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. M/S. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No.25 of 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur... …Appellant ………Respondent Versus M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur ------ CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- For the Appellant:Mr. Deepak RoshanFor the Respondent:M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Ashok Kr Sinha ------ 11/Dated: 6th May, 2015Per D.N. Patel, J 1)The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata dated 30th March, 2006 which is impugned in this appeal. 2)Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that show cause notice has been issued under Rule 11A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for wrongful availment of MODVAT credit and ultimately, the show cause notice was adjudicated upon and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was imposed. It further appears from the facts and circumstances of the case and also as per the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent that there are several clauses under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in the show cause notice, nothing is mentioned about which clause is being violated by the respondent. 3)Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005(190) ELT 433 (SC) , especially paragraph 5 thereof and has submitted that if there is no specific mentioning in the show cause notice as to which clause of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is being violated, no penalty can be levied. 4)Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are enough proof in the show cause notice which reveals that there is a breach of Rules 57A, 57E, 57F and 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Apart from the aforesaid controversy, the total amount involved is Rs.8500/-. Hence, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. As the amount is too meagre, we hereby dismiss the appeal. (D. N. Patel, J) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J)