2016 (4) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether it is justified to impose penalty equivalent to the amount of Cenvat Credit when the same amount of penalty has been imposed upon the user of Credit? (b) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified to impose equal amount of penalty when in identical facts, 10% of the credit availed has been imposed? (c) Whether the impugned order is perverse and contrary to the facts and evidences? 3. A few facts neces....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Court vide order dated 17.3.2011 (Annexure A-4) remanded the matter to the Tribunal on the question of quantum of penalty. In pursuance thereto, the Tribunal vide order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it did not take cenvat credit itself and only issued invoices on the basis of which the manufacturers took the cenvat credit. It was further submitted that the appellant had got enriched only to the extent of 1 to 3% of credit passed on and, therefore, imposition of 100% of cenvat credit passed as penalty was unreasonable and harsh. It was also urged that the impugned order does not satisfy the test of being a reasoned and speaking order an....