M/S.Tata Steel Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-264 to 271-14-15 dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

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

2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities?

M/s.Tata Steel Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Chandigarh  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.09.2015

Final ORDER NO. 52825/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigrah-I, wherein penalty of Rs.22,233/- imposed under Rule 173 Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 in the adjudication order dated 30.11.2012 has been upheld.

2. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the merits of the case and in this appeal the prayer is for reduction in the quantum of the penalty amount. In this contest, he cited the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Adhunik Steel Ltd/Tata Steel Ltd. (Final Order Nos. 52654-52655/2014 dated 01.07.2014) and Tata Steel Ltd/Adhunic Ferro Alloys Ltd. (Final order No.A/51713  51717/2015-SM (BR.) dated 22.05.2015 wherein in an identical set of facts, the quantum of penalty imposed in the adjudication order has been reduced.

3. Per-contra, Shri R.K. Mishra, the ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue objected to the prayer of the ld. Counsel and submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order is not in the higher side.

4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides.

5. I find that this is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. The authorities below have confirmed the penalty on the ground that the vehicle numbers indicated in the invoices were not capable of transporting such a huge quantity of goods and the transactions were mere paper transactions only. However, no investigation has been done at the consignees end regarding receipt of goods by them. Further, no investigation has been done at the consigners end to ascertain as to whether the goods have actually been supplied to the appellant or not. In absence of proper investigation of the matter, I am of the view that the imposition of equal amount of penalty is not just and proper. Further, considering the fact that in the precedent decisions this Tribunal has taken a lenient view in identical set of facts and reduced the quantum of penalty amount, I am of the view that the penalty can be reduced in this case also. Therefore, the penalty imposed in this case is reduced to Rs.5000/-, which shall be paid forthwith by the appellant.

6. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Operative part pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2