S.T.A. No. 4 of 2008. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STA No. 4 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 27, 2008. The Commissioner of Central Excise, ---Appellant Jalandhar. Versus M/s Guru Nanak Dev Electricals, --Respondent Jalandhar. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Central Govt. standing counsel. *** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.J (ORAL) Delay condoned. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act 1994 against the Order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether in view of the habitual conduct of the respondent in deliberately not appearing before the statutory authorities on the dates of hearing, the learned Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter? (b) Whether the opportunities already granted to the respondent amount to sufficient opportunity? (c) Whether when the minimum penalty provided under Section 76 of the Act, as held/interpreted by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal cited as 2004(174) ELT S.T.A. No. 4 of 2008. -2- 19 (Tri-LB), has been imposed, the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter? (d) Whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the learned Commissioner, especially when the minimum penalty provided under the statute has been imposed? (e) Whether the Commissioner can exercise the power of revision after the expiry of the period of limitation of two years provided under Section 84(5) of the Act? There was delay in filing tax by the assessee beyond 96 days. Show cause notice was given to the assessee and thereafter penalty of Rs.8592/- was imposed. In revision, the Tribunal has set aside the said order on the ground that the assessee was not given the opportunity. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has merely remanded the matter for giving opportunity, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 27.11.2008 lucky