9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that in spite of non-applicability of Rule 26(2) penalty could be levied as the appellant in that case was concerned in selling or dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation - Rule 25(1)(d) and Rule 26(1) were also applicable – Held that:- Said observations were made in respect of the persons concerned with the selling of the goods and issuance of the invoices - appellant ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er alia, imposed penalties of Rs. 10,00,000/- upon Shri Abhay Gupta, Director of M/s. Lauls Limited and of Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri Ram Bilas Bansal, a broker, under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. We find from the impugned order of Commissioner that out of the total confirmed demand of Rs. 94.17 lakhs approximately, M/s. Lauls have already deposited an amount of Rs. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us that penalty has been imposed under Rule 26, without referring to any sub-rule. In any case, the provisions of Rule 26 were amended w.e.f. 1-3-07 bringing a person abetting in making documents etc. on the basis of which the other person can take the Modvat credit. Inasmuch as the period involved in the present appeal is prior to 1-3-07, when the abetment was not punishable under the said rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He was working on commission basis. Admittedly prior to 1-3-07, the provisions of Rule 26(2)(ii) were not available. The Hon ble High Court decision is also to the same effect. However, we note that in para 10 of the said judgment, the Hon ble High Court has held that in spite of non-applicability of Rule 26(2) penalty could be levied as the appellant in that case was concerned in selling or deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
