2016 (12) TMI 1693 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - penalty u/r 26(2) of CER 2002 - Held that - Revenue has been able to prove that the appellants were engaged in the activity of issuance of fake invoices without movement of the goods - as the appellants are involved in the matter by way of issuance of fake invoices, therefore, the provisions of Rule 26(2) of CER 2002 are attracted to the facts of this case - penalty rightly imposed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of duty, interest, and penalty based on issuance of fake invoices without movement of excisable goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming the demand of duty, interest, and penalty on both the appellants for their involvement in issuing fake invoices without the actual movement of excisable goods. The first appellant was the assessee, and the second appellant was the Director of the first appellant. The investigation revealed that the appellants were engaged in trading excisable goods and had obtained fake invoices through a commission agent. The commission agent admitted arranging fake invoices for various dealers, including the appellants. The Director of the first appellant acknowledged issuing fake invoices without the physical movement of goods specified in the invoices. The cheques/RTGS transactions between M/s. Jadia Pipes (India) Ltd. and the first appellant were also mentioned in the recovered diaries. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order, leading to the appeal before the tribunal.

During the appeal, the appellants argued that no investigation was conducted with the transporter/driver to verify the dispatch of goods to M/s. TFEPL as mentioned in the invoices. They also contended that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the authorities below. On the contrary, the AR highlighted the statement of Shri Sahil Sharma, the second appellant, who admitted to issuing fake invoices without the movement of excisable goods, which was corroborated by entries in the diaries of the commission agent.

After considering the submissions, the tribunal found that the statement of Shri Sahil Sharma admitting to issuing fake invoices without the movement of goods was not retracted and remained uncontroverted by any substantial evidence. Consequently, the tribunal held that the Revenue successfully proved the appellants' involvement in the issuance of fake invoices. The tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to immunity and that the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applied to the case. Therefore, the penalty imposed on both appellants was deemed appropriate, and the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants.