2015 (10) TMI 888 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under Rule 173 Q - Quantum of penalty - Held that - The authorities below have confirmed the penalty on the ground that the vehicle numbers indicated in the invoices were not capable of transporting such a huge quantity of goods and the transactions were mere paper transactions only. However, no investigation has been done at the consignees end regarding receipt of goods by them. Further, no investigation has been done at the consigners end to ascertain as to whether the goods have actually been supplied to the appellant or not. In absence of proper investigation of the matter, I am of the view that the imposition of equal amount of penalty is not just and proper. Further, considering the fact that in the precedent decisions this Tribunal has taken a lenient view in identical set of facts and reduced the quantum of penalty amount, I am of the view that the penalty can be reduced in this case also - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of penalty amount under Rule 173 Q of Central Excise Rules 1944 based on previous tribunal decisions.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Penalty Amount Reduction:
The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The appellant did not contest the case's merits but sought a reduction in the penalty amount. The appellant's counsel cited previous tribunal decisions where penalties in similar cases were reduced. The Revenue objected to the reduction, arguing that the penalty was justified based on the case's circumstances.

2. Judicial Review and Decision:
The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation on the matter. The authorities upheld the penalty due to discrepancies in vehicle numbers on invoices and suspicions of paper transactions. However, no investigation was conducted at the consignees' or consignors' ends to verify the transactions. The Tribunal found the imposition of the penalty unjust due to lack of proper investigation. Citing leniency in previous decisions, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty to Rs. 5000, which the appellant was directed to pay immediately.

3. Final Decision and Disposal:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should be reduced based on the lack of thorough investigation and the precedent of leniency in similar cases. The appeal was disposed of with the direction for the appellant to pay the reduced penalty amount promptly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the final decision rendered in the case.