M/S. Tata Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-216 to 220 dated 1.1.2014 and CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-146 to 151-14-15 and CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-138-145 both dated 30/04/2014 and CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-160 to 167-14-15 dated 16/05/2014 all passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh.]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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. Appellants Ltd.

M/s. Adhunik Ferro Alloys Ltd.

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Chandigarh

Appearance:

Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 22.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51713-51717/2015-(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the penalty has been imposed on the appellants on the ground that appellants have issued invoices to the traders without actually supplying the goods. It is further submitted that appellants are not contesting merits of the case in this case and seek certain reduction of penalty in view of decision of this Tribunal in the case of Adhunik Steel Ltd. and M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. vide Final Order No. 52654  52655/2014 dated 1.7.2014 and prayed that penalties have been imposed on the appellant from same investigation, therefore, penalty be reduced as in those case the penalties were reduced.

2. On the other hand, learned AR objected to the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in the case of Ragini Steels(P) Ltd. {[2015] 56 taxman.com 324 (P&H)}, the Honble High Court has held that Tribunal cannot observing that penalty is on higher side.

2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

3. In this case, the appellants are relying on the decision of this Tribunal for reduction of penalty in the case of appellants himself and in the case of Adhunik Steel Ltd. and M/s. Tata Steel (supra). The decision relied upon by the learned AR in the case of Ragini Steels(P) Ltd. also says that Tribunal can give reasoning for reduction of penalty. In the same investigation, the penalty on the co-noticee have been reduced by this Tribunal therefore, it cannot be said that in this case penalty cannot be reduced, therefore, following the precedent decision, in the case of Adhunik Steel Ltd. and M/s. Tata Steel (supra), the penalty on the appellant is reduced as under:

Appeal No. penalty

E/51930/2014 Rs.11,000/- E/54436/2014 Rs.24,000/- E/54437/2014 Rs. 8,500/- E/54439/2014 Rs.27,000/- E/54551/2014 Rs.6,000/- 4. Ordered accordingly. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss