TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. 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 section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 invoices. Learned counsel for the appellant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 imposed under Rule 57-1 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Ex....