9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst stage dealer. Therefore, they are liable to penalty. - Tribunal in the case of Amex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Another (2013 (8) TMI 129 - CESTAT CHENNAI) following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty on the registered dealer. However, penalty reduced ₹ 1,62,500. - Appeal No.E/99/2012-SM, E/138/2012-SM - Final Order Nos. 40690-40691/2013 - Dated:- 20-12-2013 - P K Das, J. For the Appellant : Ms M N Bharathi, Adv. Mr M Saravanan, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr K S V V Prasad, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P K Das: Both the appeals arising out of a common order and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief as revealed from the record are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relies upon the following decisions:- (i) R.S. Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-I reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T.114 (Tri.-Del.) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T.347 (Del.). (ii) Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T.312 (Tri.-Mumbai). (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Vs India Steel reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T 526 (Tri.-Del.). He submits that there is no malafide on their part and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 4. Shri M. Saravanan, learned Counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that the Show Cause Notice proposed penal action under Rules 25 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eels, Appellant No.2 they admitted that they have received the MS Coil and supplied the MS Scrap to the appellant no.1. It is stated that they have not retracted such statement. It is also submitted that the proprietor of the first stage dealer admitted in his statement that they are supplying the MS Coils and in some cases they issued Cenvated invoices without goods and they have got 30% to 50% in this transaction. He submits that appellant no.1 had availed the Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices not related to the goods supplied by the second stage dealer. He relied upon the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Another Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Coimbatore reported in 2013- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts that they have received the goods as per their purchase order, properly accompanied with Cenvated bills, mentioning dearly the duty, description, quantity, value and details of 1 st stage dealer as well as manufacturers; that they had purchased solid scraps only; that they never purchased wires /coils from M/s. Leadsman Enterprises or from anybody else; that they had carried out chemical composition test only in respect of stainless steel scraps alone to check, the nickel and carbon content, for which they used spectrometer and results were analysed through monitor; that no test reports were maintained. 7. It is seen from the statement of Shri Surbudeen, Proprietor of M/s. Chennai Steels that in some cases they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were supported by the statement of first stage dealer. Therefore, they are liable to penalty. I agree with the submission of the learned Authorised Representative that they issued invoices in some cases without material and therefore, they are liable to penalty. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Amex Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Another (supra) following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty on the registered dealer. However, taking into account of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the penalty to ₹ 1,62,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred only). 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant no. 1 is allowed with consequential relief and the appeal filed by appellant no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
