M/S Regent Overseas Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal21 May 2015

CitationAppeal No.C/219/2007; E/444,524,648/2007

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs.1 lakh because the quantum of penalty of Rs.5 lakhs was excessive in relation to the value of the goods, approximately Rs.8 lakhs. Where the appellant's contention on service of the show cause notice and the non-mention of the LR number on the invoice is disputed on the record and the adjudicating authority has given reasoned findings on service, the Tribunal does not disturb those findings on the disputed factual questions.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.C/219/2007; E/444,524,648/2007 [Arising out of OIO No.05/MP/VAPI/2007, dt.29.01.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

1. M/s Regent Overseas Pvt.Ltd, 2. Shri Mahendra B. Verma, 3. M/s Mahalaxmi Processors Appellants

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent: Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:21.05.2015

Order No. A/10629-10632/2015 dt.21.05.2015

Per: P.K. Das

These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

2. Shri K.I. Vyas, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s Regent Overseas Pvt.Ltd, against the imposition of penalty of Rs.5 lakhs. None appears on behalf of other Appellants.

3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Advocate is that the show cause notice was not served on them. It is also contended that the Adjudicating authority proceeded on the basis of invoice that L.R. Number was not mentioned therein. He submits that LR number is mentioned in the invoice and the copy of the same was also submitted in the appeal. The main grievance of learned Advocate is that the value of the goods is about Rs.8 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5 lakhs is excessive.

4. We find that there is a dispute as to whether the LR Number was mentioned in the invoice. The Adjudicating authority had given detailed findings in respect of service of Show Cause Notice. In any event, we agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that the quantum of penalty imposed is excessive. Hence, we reduce the penalty to Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only). The appeal filed by M/s Regent Overseas Pvt. Ltd is disposed of in above terms. All other appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free