2021 (12) TMI 1402 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Levy of personal penalty on Director - fraudulent availment of cenvat credit without receipt of the inputs - HELD THAT - it is clear that since the appellant company has fraudulently availed the credit without receipt of the goods, it is not possible without the knowledge of the Director, therefore, the Director is directly involved in the fraudulent availment of credit by his company. Therefore, he is correctly liable for penalty under Rule 26. However, the penalty from Rupees Two Lakh to Rupees One Lakh. Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for fraudulent availment of cenvat credit without receipt of inputs.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh imposed on the appellant for fraudulent availment of cenvat credit without receipt of inputs by M/s Pramukh Copper (P) Ltd. The appellant availed the SVLDR Scheme 2019 against the confirmation of demand related to M/s Pramukh Copper (P) Ltd.

2. Despite notice, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant during the proceedings.

3. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the penalty imposed on the Director, who was in charge of the company where the fraud occurred, was correct. The main company, M/s Pramukh Copper (P) Ltd., had settled the demand case under SVLDRS-2019, and the penalty on the Director should be maintained.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records. It was noted that the company's case had been settled under SVLDRS-2019, and the issue in the present appeal was whether the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty based on findings that the Director had full knowledge of the fraudulent activities within the company.

5. The Tribunal found that the Director was directly involved in the fraudulent availment of credit by the company due to his knowledge of the fraudulent activities. While reducing the penalty from Rs. 2 Lakh to Rs. 1 Lakh, the Tribunal acknowledged the Director's involvement but also considered leniency based on the circumstances. The appeal was partly allowed with the modified penalty amount.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for fraudulent availment of cenvat credit without receipt of inputs.