Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Northern Industrial Corporation vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 June, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal Nos. 52470 and 52472 of 2014 SM
Excise Stay Application No. 52943 and 52945 of 2014 SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-04 to 08 and CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-09 to 11 both dated 30.1.2014 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Northern Industrial Corporation Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Chandigarh Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet Singh , Advocate for the Appellants
Shri B B Sharma, AR for the Respondent
Date of Hearing/ Decision : 24.06.2014
ORDER NO. FO/ 52664-52665 /2014- (SM)
Per Archana Wadhwa:
Both the stay petitions and appeals are being disposed of by a common order as a very short issue is involved.
2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri B B Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue, I find that the appellant is a registered dealer and as per the allegation of the Revenue, has indulged in wrongful passing of Cenvat credit to its buyers by indulging in only paper transaction without supply of goods. The proceedings initiated against the appellant resulted in imposition of penalty of Rs.51,752/- in one case and of Rs.31,461/- in another case. In addition, penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on two Directors of the said company in one case and of Rs. 15,000/- each was imposed in other case.
3. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties imposed upon the present appellant but reduced the penalty to Rs.5,000/- in one case and to Rs.3,000/- in the other case. Hence, the present two appeals stand filed by the dealer.
4. Learned advocate appearing or the appellant submits that as it is not a big case, and he does not intend to go into detailed merits of the case and inasmuch as authorised signatories have accepted the reduced penalties and his only prayer is to reduce the penalties on dealer itself.
5. Learned DR leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
6. In view of the above development, I reduce the penalty in one case from Rs.51,752/- to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and in the second case from Rs.31,461/- to Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) but for the modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeals are otherwise rejected.
7. Both the stay petitions as also both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
E/52470 52472/2014