IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.13729 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.8.2010 M/s Gopal Mills. -----Petitioner. Vs. The Chief Commissioner (CZ) and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mrs. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition has been filed against order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, waiving requirement of pre-deposit to the extent of the amount in dispute in appeal and giving liberty to recover the amount of penalty which was not in dispute in appeal. 2. The petitioner opted for Compounded Levy Scheme in terms of Rule 96ZE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, on verification, it was found that the capacity of the petitioner was more than the declared capacity and accordingly, demand for higher duty was raised and penalty was also levied. Against the final order dated 12.4.1999, Annexure P-5, the petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.2.2002, Annexure P-6. While remanding the matter for re-computing the duty liability, penalty was reduced to CWP No.13729 of 2010 Rs.10 lacs. Determination of penalty, thus, became final, as the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. After remand, the duty was re-computed vide order dated 22.10.2009, Annexure P-8, against which, appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed following order on the application for stay:- “None is present for the appellants. Heard learned DR. We find that the issue of penalty stands settled by the earlier Tribunal’s order dated 5.2.2002. As regards duty, it has been stated that the entire amount has been paid by the appellants. Considering the fact that the entire duty has been paid by them, the requirement of pre-deposit in respect of interest amount is waived during pendency of the appeal. The department is free to take necessary action for recovery of penalty amount which is not in dispute in this appeal.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is clear that the Tribunal has already granted waiver in respect of unpaid amount except to the extent of penalty amount which was not in dispute in appeal. The said order cannot, in any manner, be held to be erroneous. 5. No interference is, thus, called for. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 04, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2