9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 447 - AT - Central ExciseAbetment of availment of cenvat credit without receiving inputs - Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - The appellant cannot be charged under Rule 26, if it is the case of the Revenue that the main assessee has received only the documents on which the credit was availed, then the provisions of Rule 26(1) will not apply, and the provisions of Rule 26(2) will also not apply as the appellants have not issued any document on which someone has availed the Cenvat credit - the appellant has made out a prima facie case in their favour Pre-deposits waived till the disposal - Stay granted.
Issues: Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for abetment of availment of CENVAT Credit without receiving inputs.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, a Proprietor, sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, for allegedly abetting in the availment of CENVAT Credit without receiving the inputs. 2. The Tribunal examined the case where M/s. Dhody Goods Carrier availed credit based on Bills of Entry for goods purchased on high sea sale basis. The Revenue contended that the inputs never reached the factory premises, leading to ineligible credit. The appellant was accused of abetting in preparing such Bills of Entry and availing CENVAT credit without actual receipt of inputs. 3. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not be charged under Rule 26 since the main assessee only received the documents for credit availment, not the inputs themselves. Consequently, Rule 26(1) and Rule 26(2) were deemed inapplicable as the appellant did not issue any document for credit availing. 4. Considering the above, the Tribunal found that the appellant established a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. Thus, the application for waiver was granted, and recovery of the penalty stayed pending appeal disposal. 5. As the issue fell under the Single Member Bench's jurisdiction, the Registry was instructed to schedule the matter for resolution before the Single Member Bench accordingly.
|
