TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appeals. No legally justified reasons have been recorded by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority was required to deal with all aspects of facts and also law and then record its conclusions based thereon. - Matter remanded back - CEA No. 95 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 3-3-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of six appeals bearing CEA Nos. 92 to 96 and 109 of 2011 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in these cases is identical. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplying the material but invoices were supplied and manufacturers were taking credit without actual receipt of material. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 30.3.2006 was issued to the appellant for imposing penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity the Rules ). The appellant filed reply to the said show cause notice. The respondent vide order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure A-1) imposed penalty equivalent to the amount of credit passed, i.e. ₹ 7,26,885/-. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. Various other dealers and brokers also filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide a common order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure A-2) rejected all the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure A- 2, the appellant filed an appeal before this Court and this Court vide order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure A-4) remanded the matter to the Tribunal on the question of quantum of penalty. In pursuance thereto, the Tribunal vide order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon a decision of this Court in CEA No. 125 of 2010 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. M/s Lalit Steel and Agro Industries) decided on 5.7.2010 wherein this Court had upheld levy of 100% penalty on the assessee who had wrongly claimed the benefit of cenvat credit and 10% in the cases of the assessee who had issued invoices to the main assessee. 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
