9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer 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 - Hence, the appeals by the Department are rejected. - E/199-207/2009-SM(BR) - 1324-1332/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-11-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A. Khanna, JDR, for the Appellant. S/Shri Bipin Garg and Vikrant Kackria, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - All these 9 appeals filed by the Department are arising out of common order in Appeal Nos. 524-535/CE/CHD/2008 dated 31-10-2008. 2. Heard learned SDR for the department. Heard the learned advocate Shri Vikrant Kackaria for respondent M/s. Dinesh Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of duty from the manufacturers of final products and imposed varying penalties on respondents-dealers. All these parties filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the manufacturers of final products challenging the demand of duty and penalties imposed but allowed the appeals of respondent-dealers. Therefore, the department is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the setting aside of penalties on the respondent-dealers. 5. Learned SDR relying on decision of the Tribunal in the case of V.K Enterprises v. CCE, Panchkula, reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 462 submits that the respondents-dealers having issued invoices without actually supplying the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturer and the respondents-dealers, are only paper transactions without actual movement of goods. On these grounds, the original authority held that the concerned manufacturers of final products who have taken Cenvat credit based on invoices, are not eligible for Cenvat credit and also imposed penalties on them. The order of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Of course there is no appeal by any of the said manufactures of final products before me. Therefore, it emerges that there were no goods manufactured, sold or transferred. It is not the case of diversion of duty paid goods in one direction and invoices moving in another direction unlike in the case of V.K. Enterprises v. CCE, Panchkula cited supra. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
