9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dt. 18.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a first stage dealer and is alleged to have issued bogus invoices without supply of the goods to 15 manufacturers. One of the manufacturers, M/s Star Wire Ltd. went to the Settlement Commission and the appellant also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate fairly submits that all the 14 manufacturers have admitted their liability and deposited the duty. He further submits that while he is not arguing on merit, his only plea is for reduction of penalty to 25% on the basis of the decisions of this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had issued patently bogus invoices to 14 manufacturers with no accompanying goods. In fact, he had done so with the 15th manufacturer also, and the case for the 15th manufacturer was settled in the Settlement Commission and the culpability of the appellant was established through their own admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of dealers. Final Order No. A/50846- 50847/2014-SM[BR] dt. 03.03.2014 simply follows the former Final Order dt. 10.04.2012. Hence, these case laws, which are of Single Member Bench, are not binding. Quantum of penalty in this case has to be viewed in the background of facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the admitted fraud by the appellant and its systematic nature inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
