9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing No. 10/Dealer/Ch. 72 & 73/R-IX/HSD/95 granted under Rule 174 has also been ordered to be cancelled. 1.2 Aforesaid action has been taken by the said adjudicating Commissioner by upholding the allegation made in the show cause notice dated 10th October, 1996 to the effect that the appellant has "engaged themselves in abetting in evasion of Central Excise duty by way of wrongly/irregularly passing on Modvat credit to different manufacturers without actual transaction of the goods covered under the invoices raised by them in the name of different manufacturers, nor there have been any loading/unloading of steel materials in their declared godown at 493/B, G.T. Road (South), Howrah", thereby, contravening the provisions of Rule 57GG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a penalty of Rs. 35,000/- which is not only very high but also totally arbitrary in view of the foregoing submissions. He, therefore, prays for - (i) quashing the order of cancellation of the appellant's registration certificate and (ii) setting aside the penalty of Rs. 35,000/- imposed on the appellant or substantially reducing the same. 3.1 Ld. JDR, Shri R.K. Roy submits that the facts and circumstances of this case are similar, among others, to the facts and circumstances of the cases of Mahesh Kumar Goel and Dinesh Kumar Goel (Misc. Order No. M-96/Cal/98, dated 5-3-1998) in which there is a difference of opinion between the Members of the Division Bench of this zone on the question whether contravention of rule 57GG by abetting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les except for breach of condition of the rules relating to registration. 4.2 As regards penalty, ld. consultant submits the appellant has not pleaded guilty to the charges upheld against him in the impugned order. He vehemently contests the findings of the adjudicating authority, as is apparent from the appeal memo. He has pleaded today (date of hearing), as he does, on the instruction of the appellant so that the latter is free from any litigation and devotes his attention to his business after paying some nominal penalty, if at all. 5.1 I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. Keeping the matter in abeyance, at Tribunal's level, as suggested by the ld. JDR, will not be a correct step in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
