B.D. Gupta & Sons vs C.C.E., & S.T., Chandigarh

Date of Pronouncement: 07.09.2015

Appeal No. E/55533/2014-EX(SM), E/55558/2014-EX(SM) and E/55557/2014-EX(SM)

(Arising out of OIA No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-220 to 225-14-15 dated 28/07/2014, CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-214 to 219-14-15 dated 24.07.2014 and CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-220 to 225-14-15 dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

M/s Tata Steel Ltd.

B.D. Gupta & Sons Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E., & S.T., Chandigarh Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Naveen Bindal, Shri Kamaljit Singh, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gupta, Commissioner, AR

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52790-52792/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The issue involved in all the three appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.

2. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that he is confining his arguments to the issue of imposition of penalty alone. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal in the appellants own case has reduced the penalty to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. To substantiate his contention, the Learned Counsel produced the copy of Final Order No. A/51713-51717/2015-SM (BR) dated 22.5.2015. The DR conceded that present appeals are also appeals from the same investigation, were the allegation was that appellants issued invoices to the traders without actually supplying the goods. The Tribunal in the earlier case, by the above stated Final Order has taken a view of reducing the penalty. I do not find any ground to take a different view. Therefore, the penalty imposed upon the appellant in the above appeals is reduced to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. No other argument on merits of the case was advanced on behalf of appellants.

3. In the result the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed against appellants to 20% of the penalty imposed by the primary adjudicating authority. The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms.

(Pronounced on 07/09/2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

2