2011 (2) TMI 920 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty against the respondents to Rs. 5, 000/- from the penalty of Rs. 15 lakh which was imposed by the Joint Commissioner in its adjudication order dated 05.10.2004 - penalty was imposed against the respondents herein as they were dealers who were alleged to have issued the invoices without actual supply of goods - Undisputedly the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority at the instance of the manufacturer had been set aside by this Tribunal under Final order No. 328/2010-Ex. dated 06.05.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh - The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty reduction by Commissioner (Appeals) from Rs. 15 lakh to Rs. 5,000 for issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi, involved an appeal arising from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, reducing the penalty against the respondents from Rs. 15 lakh to Rs. 5,000. The adjudicating authority had disallowed modvat credit to the manufacturers and ordered recovery of the amount along with interest, imposing an equal penalty. The penalty was imposed on the respondents, who were dealers alleged to have issued invoices without actual supply of goods. Notably, a previous order by the Commissioner (Appeals) had been set aside by the Tribunal, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that deciding the current appeal prematurely could influence the decision on the manufacturer's case and lead to conflicting judgments on the same subject matter. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, to be considered along with the appeal remanded by the Tribunal in a previous order.

In the judgment, the Tribunal, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, allowed the appeal against the reduced penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need to await the decision on the manufacturer's case before making a final determination on the penalty reduction for the respondents. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal ensured that a comprehensive and coherent decision could be reached, avoiding potential conflicts and ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.