Page 139 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

Law

2020 (373) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
PSL LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

Civil Appeal No. 6889 of 2018, decided on 8-11-2019
1
Penalty and interest - Appeal to Supreme Court - Arguable case made
out in an appeal of low tax effect - Supreme Court decline to interfere but pen-
alty and interest set aside subject to deposit of entire amount of duty within
six weeks - Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 26 of Central Excise
Rules, 2002.
Appeal partly allowed
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR, Ms. Charanya Lak-
shmikumaran, Aaditya Bhattacharya, Ms. Apeksha
Mehta, Ms. Ishita Mathur, Ms. Mounica Kasturi
and Puneeth Ganapathy, Advocates, for the Appel-
lant.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, S/Shri K. Radhakrishnan,
Senior Advocate, B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Ni-
sha Bagchi and Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Advocates,
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Considering the low tax effect, we are not inclined to interfere
in this appeal. However, as arguable question has been raised in this appeal, we
partly allow this appeal by setting aside the amount payable towards penalty
and interest provided the appellant deposits the excise amount with the Authori-
ty within six weeks from today, failing which the order passed by the Authority
shall get revived. The appeal and all pending applications are disposed of ac-
cordingly.

_______
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2018 (363) E.L.T. 651 (Tribunal); See also 2019 (365) E.L.T. A35 (S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  139