GCR No.3 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:22.03.2010 M/s Reeda Associates, Ludhiana ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel(Indirect Taxes), for the respondent. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:- 1. Whether the Ld.Tribunal was justified in exceeding its powers by reducing the penalty in the circumstances where there are no statutory provisions empowering the Ld. Tribunal to reduce the penalty if the gravity of the offence remains fully established? 2. Whether provisional release of seized goods and vehicle after execution of Bond and furnishing of security under Rule 206 (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 absolve Respondent no.1 of the charge that the goods were liable to confiscation and would have been confiscated had they been available for confiscation? If so, what is the significance of B-11 Bond which imposes a condition on the party that all dues whether duty, value, penalty or other lawful charges which shall be GCR No.3 of 2003 2 demandable on the goods released to the party be duly paid into the treasury to the satisfaction of the proper officer within 10 days of the date of demand and that the obliger (party) and his/their representatives shall observe all the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in so far as they relate to the seized goods? The aforementioned questions of law stand squarely answered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others reported as (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) and Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, reported as 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC). In view of the above, this reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in the same terms as in aforementioned Dharmendra Textiles Processors and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills's cases (supra). (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE 22.3.2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE