TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Stay Application No. E-3159 of 2010 in Appeal No. E-3370 of 2010 and (II) Stay Application No. E-3145 of 2010 in Appeal No. E-3360 of 2010 2. The Appellant firm are manufacturers of Steel Round, Steel Bars and Cold Twisted Steel Bars (CTD Bars) falling under chapter 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. These materials are commonly used in construction of buildings. During the process of manufacture of such goods from steel ingots some waste materials emerge which is accounted as melting scrap falling under 7204.90 of the Tariff and sold to furnace units for melting it to manufacture steel ingots. 3. A case was made out by the department against the Appellants that during the period 2004-2005, the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment at the Appellants' factory on that date. (ii) An expert opinion was sought by the department from the Director of National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, Mandi Gobindgarh as to what will be the normal defect free production in the Appellant's factory. The director inspected the factory and gave an opinion that a minimum of 75% of defect free saleable products is expected in the factory. (iii) The defective goods were shown to be sold at the same price or prices higher than the prices of good quality goods. The Expert on the other hand gave an opinion that the price of defective goods should be at least Rs. 3000/- per Tonne less than the price of good quality product (iv) In the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be invoked against them. (iii) The specific clause under the rule under which penalty is imposed is not quoted and hence the penalty is not sustainable (iv) When the goods were sold at price equal to higher than the price of normal goods there is no incentive to the Appellant in changing the description of goods as defective goods. When defective goods were sold at prices equal to higher than the prices of normal goods there is no loss to revenue. (v) Since payments for all transactions are received through banking channels the allegation regarding clandestine sales is not maintainable. (vi) During the relevant period there was no provision in the rules to impose penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant. So we direct the appellant firm namely M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills & Metal Industries to deposit within six weeks of receipt of this order, 50% of the penalty imposed on the Appellant for admission of the appeal. Subject to deposit of this amount there shall be waiver of the balance amounts due for admission of the appeal of the firm and the appeal filed by its partner M/s. Sanjay Gupta and there shall be stay on collection of such balance amount during the pendency of the appeal. (III) Stay Application No. E-2911/2010 in Appeal No. E-3128/2010 10. These cause papers are filed by M/s. Reena Ispat Udyog. 11. In the Show Cause Notice Dated 28-7-2010, penalties were proposed against 5 registered dealers who had issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed is not applicable to a dealer because they have not dealt with any goods but only dealt with invoices as per the allegation in the SCN. 13. The question whether any penalty can be imposed under provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, on a dealer who just received fake invoices, took fraudulent Cenvat credit and issued fake invoices to pass on such fraudulent credit to others is debatable point. Our prima facie conclusion is that penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 in such cases. So we waive the requirement of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal. There shall be stay on collection of such penalty during the pendency of the appeal. (IV) Stay Application No. E-3264/2010 in Appeal No. E-3464/2010 14. These c....