2019-TIOL-NEWS-275 Part 2, Dated: Friday, November 22, 2019

SERVICE TAX

2019-TIOL-3387-CESTAT-HYD

Sapphire Container Cargo Vs CCE, C & ST

ST - Cargo Handling Service - It appeared to the Revenue, on verification of records, that the assessee is engaged in the activity of loading, transport and unloading of cargo through road, Rail (containers), Road-cum-Rail to different service receivers under composite contracts and accordingly issued a SCN dated 22.10.2009 proposing to demand Rs.1.99 crore being the ST including Cesses for the period 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, apart from applicable interest and penalty - demand upheld along with interest, penalty imposed - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: The assessee's contention is that the services rendered by them are of transportation only and not cargo handling services and they justify quoting the contract which is for transportation of goods per se and not to provide cargo handling service - they further contend that for transportation of goods, they are required in some cases to load and unload - from the definition of "Cargo Handling Services" what emerges is that mere transportation of cargo is excluded and there is no doubt that a freight activity of service of transportation of goods will surely include some manner of loading and unloading of goods - it is found that the assessee themselves do not carry out the activities of loading and unloading per se which are claimed to be carried out by independent contractors - on harmonious reading of the clarification dated 5.10.2015 of CBEC vis-à-vis the facts borne out on record, it is clear that the contracts apparently did not have significant component of Cargo handling other than transportation though a small component of loading and unloading cannot be ruled out - however, no separate activity of cargo handling is mentioned nor the rate specified and even the invoices placed on record do not specifically charge for cargo handling nor for loading and unloading - the cargo handling activity alleged by the Revenue is perhaps incidental to the activity of transportation and Revenue's attempt to convert such activities into cargo handling service, is too farfetched - in view of the above, the services provided by the appellant cannot be brought under the purview of cargo handling services - the allegation against the assessee on this score cannot sustain and, consequently, the impugned order will have to be set aside and is set aside - appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

2019-TIOL-3386-CESTAT-ALL

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Appellant had entered into technology license agreement with M/s. Samsung Electronics Company Limited [Samsung Korea] for use of Samsung brand and technical know-how and to receive technical information and technical support service - Samsung Korea was under an obligation to provide technical training to the employees of the appellant on payment technical training fee - on initiation of investigation, appellant informed Revenue that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.1.97 crore on account of Royalty of Training and another amount of Rs.1.48 crore as reimbursement for business and travels - the appellant paid ST of Rs.24.93 lakhs along with interest on 6.11.2008 and informed Revenue that the same was not liable to ST as the expenses were reimbursable - when the appellant received notice for personal hearing, the appellant intimated Revenue that referred SCN dated 28.9.2011 was not served upon them, and therefore, they were not in a position to submit their defence - in spite of that ex-parte O-I-O dated 05.03.2013 was passed confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.24.93 lakhs and interest, equivalent penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 [Act] and another penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 77 of the Act - on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the O-I-O - appeal to CESTAT.

Held: Commissioner (Appeals) has nowhere established that the acknowledgement received from the appellant on having received the said SCN is available with Revenue - provisions of section 37C of CEA require that the notice is to be sent through "registered post with acknowledgement due" and if the same is sent through speed post then Department should be in a position to establish that the same has been served on the person for whom it is intended - therefore, the appellants were not put on notice to defend themselves against the proposal of imposition of penalty - therefore, penalties imposed are not sustainable - the Bench has further examined the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) that in view of invocation of said proviso the provisions of said sub-section(3) of section 73 are not applicable in the present case - on being pointed out, immediately, the appellants deposited the required ST along with interest - there were not sufficient grounds to invoke said proviso since the information was available through the books of accounts maintained by the appellant - the internal page 3 of the said O-I-O clearly indicates that scrutiny of ST-3 returns and balance sheet was taken together for arriving at the ST payable by the appellant - therefore, it is clear that the appellant had filed ST-3 returns also and the whole transaction was reflected in the balance sheet - therefore, there is no element of suppression - therefore, invocation of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 73 of the Act was not justified in the present case - therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) that provisions of sub-section (3) of section 73 of the Act were not applicable in the present case is not sustainable - in view of the above, penalty imposed is set aside and without interfering with the voluntary deposit of ST along with interest, the appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para 6, 7, 8]

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2019-TIOL-3385-CESTAT-ALL

Jai Hanuman Rice Industries Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PP disposable glasses since December, 2009 - Whether the appellant has been rightly denied the facility of SSI exemption and further, whether duty has been rightly demanded for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance, duty of Rs.95.69 lakhs including cess, along with equal amount of penalty along with confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs.37.98 lakhs with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs, with further penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules.

Held: As regards to order of confiscation of finished goods valued at Rs.37.98 lakhs, it is noticed that the same were seized for want of production of finished goods records, despite the admitted fact that the said records were under resumption by the search team - on perusal and comparing the physical balance of finished goods stocks with the recorded balances in the resume manually prepared and also soft copies of stocks registers, no variation found - it is, therefore, held that order justifying the confiscation of the finished goods is not consistent with the facts on records and against the provisions of law - it is also found from the resumed records, that there is no discrepancy in the raw material stocks vis-a-vis recorded balance - it is noticed that to arrive at the total quantity and value of procured raw materials, the Revenue had erroneously resorted to double accounting of details of some consignments of raw materials received from two parallel sources, the manufacturing company and its dealer - the data supplied by manufacturer also included the purchases through its dealer - this has resulted in artificial escalation in value of raw material to Rs.5.06 crore instead of correct amount of Rs.3.09 crore - therefore, no force found in the findings of procurement and receipt of unaccounted or additional raw materials and use thereof in clandestine manufacture of the finished goods and set aside the findings relating thereto - now turning to the issue of annual turnover of the appellant, it is noticed from Annexure-12 to the Appeal, which is prepared, based on sales account for the years 2009-10 to 2012-13, retrieved from the resumed CPU, that till 2011-12 the appellant's turnover did not exceed Rs.1.35 crore (each year) - besides, it is also seen from the outcome of enquires at the end of Bankers and the statement of accounts/chart enclosed (at pages 137 -142 of paper book-3) that the annual receipt of sale proceed relating to the plastics glass business had never exceeded Rs.1.50 crore - that the appellant's annual turnover, during 2012-13 (upto 24.07.2012) was Rs.1.28 crore and thus they were eligible for SSI exemption till the date of search - under the circumstances, it is further held that, the appellant were not required to discharge duty - the Bench also agrees with the contention of the appellant that in view of the decisions in the cases of Gujarat Agro Chem Ltd. [2012 (280) ELT 435 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. - 2005-TIOL-1372-CESTAT-MUM that the debit of duty and statements at the time of visit of Revenue Officer, without there being corroborative evidence to reflect upon the clandestine removal, is not sufficient for holding against the assessee - therefore, the pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakhs by the appellant was inconsequential to establish case as alleged against them, under the facts and circumstances of the case - the Bench has considered the rivals arguments on the denial of cross-examination and find the request of cross-examination is well reasoned - it is, therefore, held that the denial of cross-examination of Shri Nirmal Jeet Singh, owner of transport namely M/s.Krishna Road Lines, Shri Umang Kumar and Ramchandra both ex-employees of the appellant was essential to test the purpose of maintenance of parallel manual records (the relied upon documents) and the contents recorded therein - the Bench is, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned order denying request for cross-examination, is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and as a consequence, the relied upon statements and the records referred therein have to be eschewed from the proceedings - it is found that the truth of contents of such documents [Sale Enquiry/ Loading slips and the Sale registers, Ledgers, Cash Book, Bank Book documents] can only be ascertained from the author - thus in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, it is held that the credibility and the probative value of the said documents is lost - the Bench finds force in the arguments that not all, but only approved Enquiry/Loading Slips represented actual sales, and hold accordingly - Revenue had not conducted investigations at the end of all the buyers for ascertaining the credibility of the Loading Slips/ Enquiry Slips - it is, however, observed that the appellant had conducted verification at the end of buyers through the annual reconciliation of accounts, with most of them, including the aforesaid seven buyers [against whom enquiries were conducted by the Revenue] - the reconciliation of accounts did not reveal any discrepancy, thereby demolishing the authenticity and reliance of the Loading/Enquiry Slips as document of clearance of goods - the Bench also agrees with the contention of the appellant that the Enquiry/ Loading Slips being order booking documents cannot form basis of confirmation of demand - in the light of the aforesaid facts on records and the circumstances, it is found that Sale Enquiry Slips/ Loading Slips and manually prepared sale registers are not admissible evidences - thus these two incredible / suspect documents viz. Sale Enquiry Slips/ Loading Slips and manually prepared sale register and party ledgers, cannot legally corroborate each other to establish their credibility - the Bench, accordingly, sets aside the findings in the impugned order and hold that the reliance on Sale Enquiry Slips/ Loading Slips and manually prepared sale register and party ledgers is misplaced - the Bench also agrees with the appellant that the relied upon GR's bearing transporters name as M/s.Krishna Road Lines and M/s.Triveni Freight Carriers have come from undisclosed source, i.e. neither resumed nor provided by any persons during investigation and are thus inadmissible as evidence in terms of section 36A of the CEA - thus these inadmissible / suspect GR's had been illegally used to corroborate authenticity of the said Sale Enquiry/ loading slips - under the facts and circumstances, the documents adduced by the Revenue are not credible and inadmissible as evidence to substantiate the charges of clandestine manufacture and removal - it is further found that the Revenue have failed to bring out any concrete, corroborating, reliable and independent evidence even distantly establishing receipt of additional raw-materials, production of finished goods, transportation of goods, transit seizure, seizure/ at the buyers end, of clandestinely removed finished goods consignments, receipt of Sale proceeds including additional consideration in support of alleged under valuation, etc. - to substantiate allegations of the clandestine manufacture and removal and undervaluation, etc. corroborative evidence is required - thus, it is found that the demand of duty of Rs.95.69 lakhs has been based on the philosophy of 'goods must have been produced' and not the quantities presumably produced, is totally imaginary based on pure presumption and assumption and thus prima facie unsustainable in the eyes of the law - in view of the findings on various issues, the impugned order is set aside - the Bench further orders for refund of pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakhs, as the appellants were eligible for SSI exemption and not liable to pay duty, as their annual clearances was within SSI limit till the date of search, during 2012-13 - the appeal is allowed in the said terms - the impugned order is set aside : CESTAT [para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.0, 12.4, 13.4, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30]

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2019-TIOL-3384-CESTAT-MAD

Jeppiaar Furnace and Steels Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - A Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2018 was issued alleging that the sale value of the finished goods i.e., MS Billets and TMT Bars was lower than the manufacturing cost - the assessee replied to the SCN, seriously disputing the allegations contained in the SCN including non-furnishing of Cost Accountant Standard (CAS-4) certificate, which had already been filed before the audit party - O-I-O came to be passed without considering the plea of the assessee - assessee in appeal.

Held: The sole reason attributed by the authorities below to allege undervaluation is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. - 2012-TIOL-58-SC-CX - the period of dispute in the above case is from 27.5.1996 to 4.3.2001 and the relevant statutory provision, as applicable at that point of time i.e., section 4 of the CEA which came into force with effect from 1.10.1975 - section 4 underwent a change with effect from 1.7.2000 - clearly, what is relevant for the case on hand is the amended provision containing "transaction value" - the Apex Court, in one of its very recent judgements in the case of D.J.Malpani [2019-TIOL-149-SC-CX-LB] has considered the amended provisions of transaction value in the context of determining transaction value including an additional amount paid voluntarily by a customer towards donation, which is called as "Dharmada" and the includibility of the same in the transaction value - the Apex Court has held as under : "14…………….. Thus, duty is chargeable on the "price actually paid for the goods", in other words, the price paid as consideration for transfer of property in the goods…….." - from the above, it is quite obvious that the duty can only be on the transaction value - in the case on hand, the transaction value cannot be anything other than the valuation arrived at by a qualified Cost Accountant in his CAS-4 certificate - the other peculiar fact of the case is that the audit party has acknowledged the furnishing of such CAS-4 certificate and the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue has acknowledged that the appellant had in fact furnished all the required documents and hence, no deficiency notice was issued - the Adjudicating Authority could have simply obtained the CAS-4 certificate before issuing the Adjudication Order and as long as the audit team, which after calling for the same, has analysed and has not expressed any objections on the same, it is incumbent upon the Adjudicating Authority to have called for and looked into the same before passing the Order-in-Original - in view of the above, the valuation as per CAS-4 certificate which has gone on records of the Revenue is required to be accepted and accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to go by the valuation as per the CAS-4 certificate alone - the ratio in the case of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. could not have been blindly applied - the authorities below have to go only by the transaction value which is the valuation as per CAS-4 certificate and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and is set aside - merit found in the contentions of the appellant that the Revenue authorities were aware of the method of valuation adopted by the appellant which was based on the CAS-4 certificate which in fact underwent proper scrutiny by the audit party of the Revenue as early as in 2016-17 and hence, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, fraud, etc.; therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation in the SCN is not just and proper - the appeal of the assessee is required to be allowed on both the counts and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed : CESTAT [para 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2, 9]

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2019-TIOL-503-SC-COFEPOSA-LB

UoI Vs Ankit Ashok Jalan

COFEPOSA - Smuggling of Gold - Delhi High Court had quashed and set aside the detention orders and allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent - Union of India through the Detaining Authority has preferred appeal before Supreme Court.

Held: Orders of detention were set aside by the High Court mainly, inter alia, on the ground that there was a clear lapse and failure on the part of the detaining authority to examine and consider the germane and relevant question relating to the imminent possibility of the detenus being granted bail, while recording its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders and also on the ground that non-placement of the relevant material in the form of Anand's retraction petition and its non-consideration by the Detaining authority also vitiates the detention orders - It is evident from paragraph 7 of the order of the detaining authority that while passing the detention orders, the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenus are actually in custody; that there is a real possibility of their being released on bail and that on being so released they would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities and, therefore, it is essential to prevent them from smuggling of gold and foreign currency in future - Supreme Court in the case of Dimple Happy Dhakad [ 2019-TIOL-279-SC-CUS ] had observed and held that the order of detention validly can be passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody; that the detaining authority must be further satisfied that the detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released, he is likely to indulge in such prejudicial activities and, therefore, it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities and the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same prejudicial activities with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining authority - Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of the case on hand and considering the ground (para 7) and the various circumstances noted by the detaining authority, Bench is satisfied that the detention orders cannot be quashed on this ground - It is to be noted that the detenus have been granted bail by the Court on the very date i.e. on 02.08.2019, therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority that the detenus are likely to be released on bail was well founded and fortified, therefore, High Court has fallen in error on quashing and setting aside the detention orders on the ground that there is a clear lapse and failure on the part of the detaining authority to examine and consider the germane and relevant question relating to the imminent possibility of the detenus being granted bail, while recording its subjective satisfaction and passing the detention orders - insofar as the submission of non-consideration of the retraction statement made by Sh. Anand, by the detaining authority is concerned, it appears that the Memo dated 31.08.2019 of Jail Authority, prisoner's (Shri Anand) petition dated 22.06.2019 was forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta only and was not forwarded to any other concerned including the Sponsoring Authority or Detaining Authority - it appears that when the detention orders were passed by the Detaining Authority, neither the Sponsoring Authority nor even the Detaining Authority was aware of any retraction petition of Sh. Anand - Under the circumstances, there was no occasion and/or reason for the Detaining Authority to consider the retraction statement of Shri. Anand - It cannot be said that on non-consideration of the Anand's retraction petition, the detention orders have been vitiated - in view of the above and for the reasons stated, High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the detention orders and interfering with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority - Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Detaining Authority is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court quashing and setting aside the detention orders is quashed and set aside and the detention orders of the respective detenus are hereby restored - The detenus shall be taken into custody forthwith by the Detaining Authority: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 9, 10, 11]

Civil Appeal arising from SLP (Criminal) no. 7010 of 2019 is allowed.

Special leave petition preferred by the respondent, i.e., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7013/2019 stands dismissed.

Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 204, 206 & 209/2019 dismissed.

- Revenue appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-2636-HC-P&H-CUS

Goodwill Traders Vs UoI

Cus - The petitioners are seeking a mandamus for clearance/release of their goods, imported/originating from Pakistan and detained at the Customs Station Attari Border, on payment of duty applicable on the date/time of filing of Bill of Entry and further for stay of auction proceedings - No case is made out which persuades the court to take a different view which have already taken in M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1950-HC-P&H-CUS - It is directed that the Customs Department shall immediately issue the detention memos to facilitate the release of detained goods lying in the godowns of respondent No.4 - It is further directed that in case the detained goods have been auctioned for the lack of any stay order, the sale proceeds of the same, in view of the detention memos issued by the Customs Department shall be released to the petitioners - In the event of auction having already been conducted, the detention memos shall be issued relating to the date of detention till the date of auction: HC

- Petitions allowed :PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-3383-CESTAT-MUM

Scottish Chemical Industries Vs CC

Cus - Whether the appellants have violated the conditions of Customs Notification 30/97 dated 1.4.1997 in respect of imports of Per Chloro Ethylene [PCE] under DEEC Licenses - the Department alleges that the appellants have misrepresented the facts of input output ratio to the authorities of DGFT; thus they have imported PCE in excess of their requirements and also they have violated the condition of the notification, cited above, in as much as they have transferred / diverted part of the imported PCE to the local market by way of clearance to their sister concern M/s.SCF - the appellants contend that clearances to M/s.SCF are for the sake of job work and the goods after due processing have been returned to the appellants by M/s.SCF and have been exported.

Held: The Adjudicating Authority has given a clear finding that there was no records maintained at the factory premises of M/s. SCI for receipt of imported PCE - from the RG 23A Part I maintained by the importer, it is seen that no entry of PCE as raw material has been made though 3 consignments of PCE purchased locally were entered - therefore, the claim of the appellants that they have merely sent the goods for Job Work to M/s.SCF do not stand scrutiny - the investigation has proved to the extent that all the purchasers and sales shown to have been effected by M/s.SCF are bogus - Commissioner has given elaborate reasoning on the basis of the evidence on record, statements recorded - the appellants have not mentioned the name of the job workers while obtaining the licenses - the investigation has successfully demonstrated that the goods even if they were supposed to have been sent to M/s.SCF on job work basis have never come back to the appellants for further use and export from their factory - in the result, one has to hold that such goods have been diverted in to the local market in contravention of the Exim Policy and the Customs Notification - the Commissioner has correctly relied upon a number of judgments in this matter - in addition to the above, it is found that Shri Kamal Khandelwal, Partner of SCI [appellant firm] and Power of Attorney holder in M/s.SCF has accepted that the appellants have diverted the excess quantity of PCE available with them to M/s.SCF and the products manufactured are sold in the domestic market which is in violation of the condition of advance license - duty free PCE has been used by SCF and that the appellants were willing to pay the customs duty leviable on the quantity of PCE diverted by them - this statement was not retracted and the diversion of the material imported duty free through M/s.SCF has been corroborated by the statements of the other personal involved - the appellants have put forth the reasoning that the persons have given statements out of fear cannot be accepted as the circumstances of such fear have not been established and have not been retracted - therefore, the statements have evidentiary value as they are also supported by other evidence - the appellants have obtained licenses under actual user condition - they did not mention their sister concern as a supporting manufacturer - they have not maintained any records which could corroborate their claims - on the contrary, the investigation has established that the goods which were claimed to have sent on job work to M/s.SCF have not returned back and the claim of sale by M/s.SCF out of their domestic procurement/import has fallen flat as all the transactions have been proved to be bogus or with non-existing parties - in spite of the claim of fulfilling the export obligation and discharge of bond by DGFT and Customs authorities, the liability of the appellants to pay duty in the event of violation of Customs Notification lies with him as held by the Commissioner and the case law cited by him supports this contention - the condition No (vii) to the Notification No 30/97 dated 1.4.1997 stipulates that “exempt materials shall not be disposed of or utilized in any manner except for utilization in discharge of export obligation or for replenishment of such materials and the materials so replenished shall not be sold or transferred to any other person” - in view of the above, the condition of the Notification is violated - in view of the clear wordings of the notification, no liberal reading in to the conditions on the basis of substantial compliance is required in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Dilip Kumar - 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB - the wordings used are 'shall not be transferred/sold' - not only there is a bar on the sale but there is a bar on transfer also - therefore, the reliance placed by the appellants on Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are misplaced - having violated the conditions of the notification, the importer has rendered himself liable to pay applicable duty in terms of the Notification: CESTAT

The appellants have also taken a plea that the SCN is barred by limitation - the Commissioner has rightly relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court that any goods imported duty free under any notification and subject to certain condition laid down in such notification, shall be liable to pay the duty so exempted in case of value to fulfill these conditions - it is not the case of the appellants that the fact of diversion, of goods imported duty free under Advance License, was in the knowledge of the department - Revenue was not made aware of the acts of omission and commission of the appellants - therefore, the Commissioner has correctly found that the SCN is not hit by limitation and that duty has been correctly demanded and penalty under section 114A was rightly imposed: CESTAT

Coming to the penalty imposed on M/s.SCF (C/891/2010), it is found that the goods were imported by the appellants and the appellants are liable to pay duty in case of any violation - the appellants have diverted the imported goods to M/s.SCF which were further sold in domestic market - the partner of the appellants is also the authorised signatory of M/s.SCF - equal Penalty under section 114A has been imposed on the appellants and it has been upheld - under the circumstances, penalty imposed on M/s.SCF appears to be higher side - therefore, the penalty on M/s.SCF is reduced to Rs.1 lakh only from Rs.6 lakhs: CESTAT

There is an appeal filed by the department for inclusion of the amount of interest in the penalty under section 114A - this issue is no longer Res Integra - the interest payable on the duty demanded does not require to be taken into consideration for arriving at the amount of penalty payable under section 114A: CESTAT

In view of the above, Appeal C/890/2010 filed by M/s. Scottish Chemical industries and C/974/2010 filed by Revenue are dismissed - Appeal No C/891/2010 filed by M/s.SCF is partly allowed by reducing the penalty imposed to Rs.1 lakh only : CESTAT [para 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]

- Appeals disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT