9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Navneet Agarwal, Director of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. On an appeal filed by Shri Navneet Agarwal, impugned order has been passed wherein, penalty imposed Shri Navneet Agarwal has been set-aside on the ground that Shri Navneet Agarwal had issued only invoices and did not deal with the goods and therefore, penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not have been imposed on him. Further, learned Commissioner also took a view that for imposing penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the original adjudicating authority did not have jurisdiction. 2. Learned DR on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or a warehouse or a registered dealer;- (a) remove any exciseable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any exciseable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage or any exciseable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the issue and relevant rules the Hon'ble High Court observed as follows in Para 10 of the decision in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises:- 10. Inspite of? non-applicability of Rule 26(2), penalty could be levied as the appellant was concerned in selling or dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation inasmuch as the appellant claimed to have sold the goods in respect of which the cenvat credit was taken. In such a case, Rule 25(1)(d) and 26(1) are also applicable. The person who purports to sell goods cannot say that he was not a person concerned with the selling of goods and merely issued invoice or that he did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. The appellant issued invoices without delivery of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
