TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These directions of the CESTAT Chennai have evidently not been followed in the de novo adjudication. In the circumstances, while this Bench is averse to remand matters again and again, we are left with no other alternative but to once more send the matter back to the adjudicating authority to cause reconciliation as per the directions already given by the Tribunal Penalty - Held that: - the issue is on a matter of interpretation of the figure provided by the appellants - there is definitely a case for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 78 since none of the ingredients which call for imposition of penalty under that section is present. Matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, CESTAT Chennai vide a Final Order No.657/2009 dt. 04.06.2009 remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions inter alia, for full reconciliation after allowing the appellants adequate opportunity for presenting their case. In such de novo adjudication, by an order dt. 07.09.2010 (impugned order), the Commissioner has confirmed the same demand of ₹ 1,86,23,677/- with interest and imposed same penalty of ₹ 2 Crores under Section 78 ibid. Hence this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld. Advocate Shri G. Natarajan submits that in de novo adjudication, appellants had furnished voluminou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciliation only with regard to data submitted by the appellants on 07.07.2010. He also contends that as the entire proceedings have emanated only due to the misreading of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellants, there is no justification for imposition of penalty. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy draws our attention to para-15 of the impugned order to point out that appellants vide their letter dt. 7.7.2010 had given figures which were different from those furnished vide their letter dt. 29.05.2007 in the first round of adjudication. Further, the adjudicating authority has observed that even comparison of figures furnished in the second round of adjudication reveals that there are still differences. 5. Heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er found variations between the figures furnished along with the reply to the Show Cause Notice and those furnished in the ST-3 returns. However, the demand was raised ignoring one class of variations. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the whole issue arose on account of certain errors in reporting which could be reconciled; the appellant was willing to do such reconciliation. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remanded for full scale reconciliation. 6. The learned Jt. CDR broadly agrees with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has no objection to the matter being remanded. 7. On a careful consideration of the case records and the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
