2016 (7) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - non mention of dimensions of goods supplied - Held that - The adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on the appellant. The lower authorities have come to a conclusion that appellant have not mentioned any dimensions of goods supplied hence there was malafide intentions. As find that there may be no malafide intentions but may be due to some genuine reason on the part of the appellant, improper dimensions may have been mentioned on the invoices. This would not mean that the penalty needs to be set aside as there is contravention of rules. While upholding the penalty on the appellant reduce the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and dispose of the appeal as indicated herein above.

Summary

Issues involved: Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for appellant's involvement in issuing invoices for CENVAT credit, settlement by main noticee, co-noticee's liability, consideration of corrective perspective, cross-examination of investigation officers, and findings by lower authorities.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses the issue of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 concerning the appellant's role in issuing invoices for CENVAT credit. The main noticee had settled the matter by paying excise duty and penalties. The appellant argued for exoneration from penalty, citing a judgment and an amendment in the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant claimed that the lower authorities did not consider the issue correctly, did not allow cross-examination of investigation officers, and failed to record any findings on the matter.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since the main noticee had resolved the issue, the appellant, as a co-noticee, should not be liable for any penalty. The Counsel relied on a specific judgment and a recent amendment to the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the learned D.R. reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.

Upon reviewing the records, the Member (Judicial) noted that a similar case involving M/s. Mahalaxmi Trading Corpn. had been disposed of by the Tribunal, upholding the penalty. The Member found that while there might not have been malicious intent behind the improper dimensions mentioned on the invoices by the appellant, there was a contravention of rules. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from ?1,00,000 to ?50,000, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with rules despite potential genuine reasons for discrepancies in documentation.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of upholding penalties for non-compliance with excise rules, even in cases where there might not be malicious intent. The decision underscores the need for correct documentation and adherence to regulatory requirements, ultimately leading to the reduction of the penalty imposed on the appellant.