2023 (10) TMI 526 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - wrongly claimed the exemption provided under Notification 20/2007-CE dated 20.04.2007, on the basis of the certificate issued by the Appellant - HELD THAT - The Appellant has not specified the purpose for which the certificate was issued by him. He stated that the M/s. Kitply Industries have asked them to verify their books of Accounts and value the plant and machinery of the company as on 31.03.2005. After examining the relevant records, the Appellant issued a certificate dated 31.03.2005. It is found that this certificate was not relied upon in the impugned order. The impugned order refers a Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 30.06.2007 certifying the additions in plant and machinery, which was not issued by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant has not abetted the offence, if any, committed by the company in claiming the benefit of exemption provided under Notification 20/2007-CE dated 20.04.2007. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is not sustainable and hence set aside the same. The penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal against the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Penalty Imposed on Appellant
The Appellant, a Chartered Accountant, appealed against the penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty was based on the allegation that the Appellant issued a certificate to M/s. Kitply Industries without examining their books of accounts, leading to the company claiming an ineligible exemption. The Appellant contested this penalty, stating that the certificate he issued was not relied upon in the impugned order, and that a different certificate dated 30.06.2007 was referenced, which was not issued by him. The Appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove that the company claimed the exemption based on his certificate. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the Appellant was not justified as he did not abet the company's alleged offense. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant.