2018 (3) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g penalties on them. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Vinay Ansurkar for the appellant M/s Sofina Fashion admitted that they were not having any manufacturing premises and had obtained registration with the sole purpose of enabling to issue ARE-1 for the purpose of claiming rebate by others like M/s Sheetal Exports, M/s Karishma Overseas and M/s Krishna Exports and other three co-noticees. 2.1 It was admitted by Shri Kashinath Das that at the behest of Mr. Chandubhai Patel and others, they had obtained registration of the premise under Central Excise. He admitted that he was proprietor of the said unit and he had signed the application for registration. He had also given authorization letter to sign on his behalf of all excise documents in fav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of Central Excise duty being exempted goods. It was argued that they had withdrawn their rebate claims and nothing was planted to them. In these circumstances, imposition of penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs respectively are excessive. Learned Counsel pleaded for leniency. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue argued that there was no manufacturing activity whatsoever undertaken by M/s Sofina Fashion. No goods were manufactured or cleared from their premises and they issued invoices and ARE-1 documents showing utilization of CENVAT Credit. In these circumstances, learned AR argued that the demand of CENVAT Credit and imposition of penalty on Sofina Fashion is justified. He further submitted that the three exporters namely,....