9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv. for the appellant and Mohd. Altaf (AC) AR for the Revenue, I find that vide their impugned orders, the appellants have been denied the benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty of Rs. 97,445/- on the ground that the same stands availed by them on the basis of the forged invoices of one M/s Shiv Traders. 2. In addition, the goods st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This notice culminated into an order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority denying the credit of Rs. 97,445/-, confiscating the goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- and with imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. On an appeal against the said order, Commissioner(Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, which provide maximum penalty equivalent to the duty amount involved. As such imposition of penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the appellant is neither warranted nor justified. The same is accordingly reduced to Rs. 97,445/-. But for the above reduction in the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Miscellaneous Application also stands di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
