9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority in the matter of reduction of the quantum of penalty which has been imposed by the adjudicating authority. But, however the exercise of discretion should be with sound reasons and cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. On perusal of paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not assigned any acceptable reasons as to why the penalty imposed on M/s.Endeavour Industries Limited should be reduced from ₹ 50 lakhs to ₹ 12.50 lakhs, on M/s.Future Tech Industries Limited should be reduced from ₹ 50,00,000/- to ₹ 12,50,000/-, on M/s.Victoria Steel Enterprises Limited should be reduced from ₹ 80,00,000/- to ₹ 20,00,000/- and on M/s. Sujana Steel Products Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- The factual position being that M/s.Sujana Metal Products Limited having already reversed the credit of ₹ 8,21,75,955/-, once more to call upon them to reverse an equivalent amount would not be permissible in law - the finding rendered by the Tribunal in the impugned order is confirmed - this issue decided against Revenue. Appeal allowed in part. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.588 to 592 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2021 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA For Appellant Mr. A.P. Srinivas in all appeals : Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent in all appeals : Mr. G. Natarajan COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty as ordered by the Tribunal in the impugned order: S.No. Appeal No. Appellants Penalty Imposed (Rs.) Penalty Reduced to (Rs.) 1. E/102/2010 Sujana Metal Products Ltd. 1,00,00,000/- under Rule 15(i) of CCR 2004 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) 2. E/105/2010 M/s. Victoria Steel Enterprises Ltd. 80,00,000/-Rule 26(2)(i)(ii) of CER 2002 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) 3. E/106/2010 M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on should be with sound reasons and cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. On perusal of paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has not assigned any acceptable reasons as to why the penalty imposed on M/s.Endeavour Industries Limited should be reduced from ₹ 50 lakhs to ₹ 12.50 lakhs, on M/s.Future Tech Industries Limited should be reduced from ₹ 50,00,000/- to ₹ 12,50,000/-, on M/s.Victoria Steel Enterprises Limited should be reduced from ₹ 80,00,000/- to ₹ 20,00,000/- and on M/s. Sujana Steel Products Ltd., should be reduced from ₹ 1 Crore to ₹ 25,00,000/-. The only finding that the Tribunal has recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is that app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned, the adjudicating authority has gone into the facts and has dropped the proposal for recovery of CENVAT credit from M/s.Sujana Metal Products Limited. The correctness of this decision was tested by the Tribunal and the finding is in paragraph 11 which we quote herein below: 11. As far as the Revenue's appeal, pleading for demanding cenvat credit taken by the main appellant, we find that issue is well dealt by the adjudicating authority in his findings this circular chain of bill trading transaction initiated by SMPL by using/adopting actual credit balance of ₹ 8,21,75,995/- available in their RS23A and RG-23D account and created cenvatable invoices to three dealers mentioned above. The initial credit debited by SMPL is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
