TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we reduce the penalty from ₹ 50,00,000/- to ₹ 10,00,000/- - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/5870/2004 - 829/2009-EX(PB) - Dated:- 16-9-2009 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy and Shri P.K. Das, JJ. Shri Atul Gupta, Company Secretary, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Sony, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is proprietor of M/s. Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s. Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar. Both the firms are registered dealers. It was found during investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship firm. So, the penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. He further submits that the appellant earned small amount in these transactions and the amount of penalty is excessive. He also submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 506 (Tribunal-LB) held that where there is no movement of goods and assessee is only issuing invoices, penalty under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Rules pari materia to Rule 26 of Rules 2001 cannot be invoked. It is his contention that the appellant had not handled the goods and penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed. 4. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on but the noticee s role was limited only to the extent of issuing invoices to M/s. Asian Alloys Ltd. as he was a registered dealer and had not utilised Rs. 82,22,362/-. The notice was the proprietor of M/s. Asim Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh and only a small premium of Rs. 10,05,372/- has been earned during the relevant period. Therefore, it can not be said that the notice concealed their financial gain at any stage arising out of the transactions with M/s. Asian Alloys Ltd. 6. We agree with the submission of the ld. DR that the appellant played a separate role apart from issuing the cenvatable invoices through his firms and separate penalty is liable to be imposed. It is seen from the impugned order that the registered dealers and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
