2017 (3) TMI 918 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalties u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - levy on the ground that the appellants have received fake invoices to enable Shri R.K.Gupta to issue cenvatable invoices enabling the manufacturer/buyers to avail cenvat credit on the strength of bogus invoices - Held that - penalty u/r 26 (2) cannot be invoked unless and until the appellant have dealt with such goods during the impugned period - Admittedly, it is allegation against the appellants that they have dealt with issuance of bogus invoices. Therefore, the penalty u/r 26 of the CER, 2002 is not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The case involved penalties imposed on the appellants for allegedly issuing fake invoices to enable manufacturers/buyers to avail cenvat credit. The investigation was based on the statement of Shri R.K.Gupta, who claimed that the appellants issued only invoices, not goods, and that transactions were bogus. The penalties were imposed on all appellants, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellants argued that penalties were unjustified as the case against manufacturers/buyers availing cenvat credit based on Shri R.K.Gupta's invoices had been set aside by the Tribunal. They contended that no proper investigation was conducted at the end of the suppliers or transporters, and cross-examination was not granted, questioning the validity of the penalties.

3. The Respondent argued that since the appellants were involved in issuing invoices to M/s. R.K. Enterprises, penalties were warranted. However, the Tribunal considered the submissions and found discrepancies in the investigation and lack of evidence to support the allegations against the appellants.

4. The Tribunal noted that the case against the appellants relied heavily on Shri R.K.Gupta's statement, which lacked proper investigation and cross-examination. It was challenging to rely on third-party statements without concrete evidence. Additionally, a previous case cited by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted the importance of proper investigation and cross-examination in such matters.

5. The Tribunal concluded that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be imposed on the appellants without concrete evidence of their involvement in fraudulent activities. As the allegations were not substantiated, the penalties were deemed unjustified, and the impugned order imposing penalties was set aside, granting relief to the appellants.