2010 (4) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ingh, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr.Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The revenue has impugned the order dated 9.6.2005 (Annexure A3) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide which the penalty has been reduced from Rs.1,88,997/-, as imposed by the Adjudicating Authority upon the assessee to Rs.50,000/- under s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gly been availed by the respondent and imposed the penalty of Rs.1,88,997/- and that it was a case of paper transaction only. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, vide order (Annexure A3) has reduced the penalty to Rs.50,000/- after holding that it was a clear cut case where the inputs had not been received alongwith the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the Tribunal has discretion to reduce the penalty. While admitting the present appeal, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether the learned Tribunal is right in holding that the adjudicating authority has discretion to impose the lesser penalty where the maximum penalty is prescribed under the Act? (ii)Whether penalty impose....