TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dran, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. Karnataka Metal Company (KMC), the appellant in the first two appeals is aggrieved by penalties of Rs.50,827/- and Rs.1,06,226/- respectively imposed on them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The finding against them is that they issued statutory invoices to another party without supply of goods with a view to enabling that par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the original and first appellate authorities. 3. After considering the submissions made in the first two appeals, I have not found any case for the appellant against Rule 25 penalties. 4. In one case, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.50,827/- and the appellate authority affirmed it. In the other case, the original authority imposed a penalty of Rs.1,06,226/- and the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods mentioned in the invoice in question. The manufacturer sold the goods to one party and issued the invoice to another. For this offence, the appellant carries a penalty of Rs.43,726/- which is equal to the CENVAT credit taken by the recipient of the invoice. The position of this appellant is, by and large, identical to that of Karnataka Metal Company (KMC). After hearing both sides, ther....