2019 (4) TMI 2117 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - Availment of fraudulent CENVAT Credit - issuance of bogus LRs for transport of copper - HELD THAT - From the plain reading of the Rule 26 it is clear that merely for making bogus LRs the action of the appellant does not fall as an offence under Rule 26. The rule 26 was subsequently amended from 01.03.2007 effective from 01.04.2007. Since the period involved is prior to the said amendment the penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed only for issuance of bogus LRs. This issue is covered by the judgment of Hon ble Punjab High Court in case of COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S MINI STEEL TRADERS 2014 (6) TMI 419 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT where it was held that where a person merely arranges modvatable document to the manufacturer without actual delivery of goods penalty could not be imposed under rule 209A. Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules 2002 prior to amendment on 1.3.2007 is akin to Rule 209A. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appellant involved in issuance of bogus LRs for transport of copper, penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the appellant for issuing bogus LRs for the transport of copper, leading to fraudulent cenvat credit availed by the consignee. The issue centered around whether the appellant's actions constituted an offense under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant did not appear during the proceedings, while the Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon considering the submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the period in question was before 01.03.2007, during which Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stated that a penalty could be imposed on individuals involved in dealing with excisable goods liable for confiscation. However, it was observed that merely issuing bogus LRs did not fall within the scope of this offense as per the plain reading of Rule 26. The Tribunal highlighted that the rule was amended effective from 01.03.2007, and therefore, the penalty could not be imposed solely for the issuance of bogus LRs for the period before the amendment.

In support of this interpretation, the Tribunal referenced judgments from the Hon'ble Punjab High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, namely the cases of Mini Steel Traders and Ramesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar & Co., respectively. These judgments clarified the scope of Rule 26 and supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was revoked. The Tribunal's decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, bringing the case to a close.