IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No.173 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s AVS Brake Lining Pvt. Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Cental Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.3.2009 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable on the grounds that the appeals filed by the appellants is supported by an undated Review Order without the date even being put by the learned Commissioner under their signature and the Review Order does not disclose why the Order-in-Appeal was found to be not C.E.A. No.173 of 2010 legal and proper whereas the fact is that for the purpose of filing appeal, a clear opinion was formed by the members of the committee on the note sheet, firstly by the Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-III on 06.02.2007 and further assented to by another Commissioner, namely, Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak on 12.02.2007 by affixing his signature next to the signature of the Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-III and the Committee of Commissioners has passed the Review Order that the Order-in- Appeal No.13/NS/GGN/2007 dated 11.01.2007 was not legal and proper and the same was required to be appealed against before the learned Tribunal after having examined the case records of the said Order- in-Appeal? 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Brake Linings and is availing CENVAT Credit facilities under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. During scrutiny of return for the months of September and October, 2004, it was alleged that the assessee contravened Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and failed to pay the requisite duty. After issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 7.2.2005, Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2005 was passed against the assessee. On appeal, demand of duty was sustained but demand of interest was set aside on the ground that there was neither any proposal for demand of interest in the Show Cause Notice nor quantification of interest amount was made in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) also set 2 C.E.A. No.173 of 2010 aside penalty of `10,000/-. Appeal of the revenue to the Tribunal has been dismissed as not maintainable. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and should have allowed the appellant to rectify the defects. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Even if we assume that the Tribunal should have gone into the merits of the case, we find that the amount of penalty involved is only `10,000/- and on the question of interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that there was no proposal to levy interest in the Show Cause Notice nor quantification of the amount in the order. We asked learned counsel for the appellant as to how much was the amount of interest. He was unable to point out the same except stating that it could not be a significant amount. The amount of penalty involved is only `10,000/-. 6. In view of above, the amount being insignificant, we do not find any ground to go into the matter on merits. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 21, 2010 (RAJESH BINDAL) ashwani JUDGE 3