TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rap and raised invoices on MS Coils, Rounds etc., to Appellant No.1, the manufacturer for claiming the benefit of Cenvat credit in violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is also noted that the manufacture knowing fully well that they have not received the goods as per description of the invoices they have availed the credit, which is totally irregular. Hence, the demand of duty along with penalties on the manufacture and the dealers are justified - demand of duty, penalty along with interest on Appellant No.1 is upheld - Decided against assessee. - E/ 332/2012, E/334/2012, E/330/2012, E/328/2012, E/331/2012 - Final Order Nos.40653-40657/2013 - Dated:- 1-11-2013 - Shri P.K. Das, J. For the Appellant : S/Shri S. Kandasamy, Cons., M.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant No.3, Authorised Signatory of M/s. Santosh Kumar Steels under Rule 26 of the said Rules and a penalty of Rs.2,76,347/- and Rs.2,50,000/- was imposed on Shri Amman Steels, Appellant No.5 under Rule 25(1)(a) (b) and Rule 26(2) of the said Rules respectively. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. 03. Heard both sides and perused the records. 04. On a perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the Appellant No.1 availed Cenvat credit on the basis of dealers invoices under the description of HR Sheets and Coils, CR Sheets and Coils, MS Wire/Coils, Plates etc., issued by the Appellant No.4 5. Appellant No.1 had not received the said goods. On investigation, it was found that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 2010 (249) E.L.T.462 (Tri.-Del.), held that the quantum of penalty is the discretion of the authority to mitigating or aggravating circumstances and the Hon ble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for determining the quantum of penalty. He further submits that the penalties imposed on two provisions are not sustainable. He also submits that penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) prior to 01.03.2007 is not sustainable. 07. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative submits that on an identical issue, the Tribunal already decided a batch of appeals in the case of Amex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Coimbatore reported in 2013-TIOL-1202-CESTAT-MAD = 2013 (296) E.L.T. 229 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. 10. It is seen that Shri K.G. ramesh, Managing partner of Appellant No.1 had personally involved to avail the irregular Cenvat credit and, therefore, imposition of penalty is justified. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty on Shri K.G. Ramesh is reduced to Rs.50,000/-. (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 11. The penalty of both the dealers Appellant Nos. 4 5 under Rule 25(1)(a) and (b) are upheld and penalty imposed under Rule 26(2) are set aside. 12. Penalty imposed on Appellant No.3 Shri M. Manikandan, Authorised Signatory is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). 13. All the appeals filed by the appellants are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
