9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuated at Nasik - Held that:- The order is not specific as to how there is jurisdiction vested with CCE, Indore for imposing penalty for taking wrong Cenvat credit in Nasik or how the provisions of Rule 209A or Rule 26 is applicable to the situation. Thus no merit is found in the argument for imposing penalty under aforesaid Rules and vesting of jurisdiction with CCE, Indore for credit taken in Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that no such capital goods were removed or supplied by M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd. and hence the department proceeded against M/s MGM Tools as also the present Appellants. A Show Cause Notice issued to both the parties was adjudicated confirming a demand of Rs.7,92,702/- from M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd. in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing a penalty of Rs.4 lakhs on MGM T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d capital goods and also for imposing the penalty. The contention is that the Central Excise authorities at Indore have no separate case for imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellants also contest that the case of the Revenue is that the invoices were issued without any accompanying goods and the provisions for imposing penalty in such situation was made under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Revenue submits that it is not clear whether any action has been taken in Nasik and no decision should be taken based on the submission of the Appellants that action has been taken in Nasik. However, ld. AR for Revenue is not able to specify how a penalty could be imposed under Rule 209A or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the Appellants. He reiterates the findings in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
