CCE Vs. G.M. LAMINATES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue filed this appeal as the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed by Adjudicating Authority on M/s. G.M. Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) The respondents have requested for adjournment of hearing as their Director is not in a position to attend hearing on account of some unavoidable personal work. As the issue involved in this appeal is in narrow compass, we reject the application for adjournment of the hearing and take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri V. Valte, learned SDR and perusing the records.

(3.) The learned SDR submitted that the respondents manufactured paper based (bonded) decorative laminated sheets in respect of which they had claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 20/94 -CE dated 1.3.94; that the benefit of said notification was not available to them and as such during the period from 9.2.94 to 21.12.94, they had short -paid Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,34,770.95; that the show cause notice dated 17.2.95 was issued to them for demanding the differential duty; that the Additional Commissioner, under the adjudication Order No. 9/2003 dated 6.3.2003, confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, has set aside the amount of penalty on the ground that the penalty is not imposable in a dispute about the classification or interpretation of notification. The learned SDR emphasised that the respondents had adopted delaying tactics by not appearing for personal hearing till February 2003 to keep the case pending with intent to avoid payment of duty as well as penalty demanded in the show cause notice even though their appeal, in a similar case, had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in November 1998 as reported in 1994 (107) ELT A 51; that it has been categorically held that decorative laminated sheets obtained by coating the paper with resole are classifiable under heading 39.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that as the respondents had enjoyed financial accommodation for the period of four years, the penalty has been rightly imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.