2012 (8) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld the goods to one party and issued the invoice to another – Held that:- Conduct of the appellant attracted Rule 25 - quantum of penalty reduced - E/1150/2009; E/2269/2010 & E/2270/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2012 - SHRI P. G. CHACKO, J. S/Shri S. Jai Kumar K. S. Ramesh, Advocates for the appellant. Shri M. M. Ravi Rajendran, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. Karnataka .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ual position and has urged that a lenient approach be taken. In the second appeal, the role played by the appellant is identical but the appellant does not know as to whether the customer reversed the CENVAT credit initially taken. 2. I have heard the Deputy Commissioner (AR) also, who has reiterated the findings recorded by the original and first appellate authorities. 3. After considerin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... am inclined to reduce the quanta of penalties in the two cases to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) respectively. With this modification, the impugned orders are sustained. Appeal No. E/2270/2010 4. The third appeal is by M/s. Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd., manufacturers of the goods mentioned in the invoice in question. The manufacturer sold .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X