IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A. No. 104 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: January 7, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Rohtak …Appellant Versus M/s Anant Belting Corporation …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Central Govt. Counsel, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has preferred the instant appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), against the order dated 26.11.2007 (P-3), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), proposing the following substantial question of law:- C.E.A. No. 104 of 2008 “Whether imposition of penalty equivalent to duty amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is mandatory or discretionary?” We have perused the order dated 26.11.2007. The Tribunal has found that there is no material to show any suppression of facts and mis-statement to conclude that the assessee-respondent had intentionally evaded payment of duty. It has been found that the assessee-respondent has deposited duty before issuance of show cause notice and there is no case of clandestine removal of the goods and that the penalty has been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The principle of law laid down by this Court in the case of CCE v. Sigma Steel Tubes, 2007 (82) RLT 361, does not need to be gone into because on facts of the present case we find that the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act would not be attracted. Therefore, no interference of this Court is called for. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 7, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2