Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
V.K. Enterprises vs Cce, Panchkula on 26 August, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017
Single Member Bench
COURT NO.1
Excise Appeal No. E/847,941,942,943,944,946/2009
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 14/Commr/PKL/2008-09 dated. 07.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Panchkula]
,
Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.08.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
Yes
V.K. Enterprises
Vijay Enterprises
Anuj Enterprises
Pawan Steels
Rajat Enterprises
J V Steel Traders. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Panchkula Respondent
, Appearance Sh.Naveen Bindal, Advocate- for the appellant Shri G.M. Sharma, AR- for the respondent , CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61258-61263/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders imposing penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. The facts of the case are that all the appellants have been dealt cenvatable invoices to manufacturer buyer without supplying the goods. The said fact has been admitted by all the parties and manufacturer buyers have revealed cenvat credit to the effect. The proceedings were initiated against all the appellants to impose penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. This Tribunal has imposed penalty equivalent to the cenvat credit involved. The said order was challenged before the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding that penalty is to be imposed on all the appellants but for the quantum of penalty matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals are before me.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that in this case the penalty on manufacture buyer has been reduced to 25%. In that case, the penalty on the director be reduced to 10%.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
5. Considering the submission made by Ld. Counsel is that in the case of manufacturer buyer of the penalty has been reduced to 25% of the cenvat credit involved and in similar types of case in the case of Tata Iron & Steel CO. ltd., 1986 (23) ELT 205 (Tribunal) this Tribunal has reduced the penalty to 20% of credit involved. Therefore, penalty to be reduced to 20% to credit involved.
With these terms, the appeals are disposed of (Dictated and Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1