9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 assesse issued invoices without delivery of goods with intent to enable evasion of duty to which effect a finding has been recorded and which finding has not been challenged – the appellant was liable to pay penalty – Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1543-1544/2010-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO: 57596-57597/2013 - Dated:- 30-8-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. R.K.Mishra, A.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. None appeared for the respondent though a notice for hearing had been sent to them. In view of this, so far as the respondent are concerned, the matter is being decided by the ex-parte. 4. Sh. R.K. Mishra, learned Jt. DR, pointing out to para 9 10 of the judgment of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in case of Vee. Kay. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2011 (266) ELT-436 (P. H), pleaded that even during period prior to 01.03.07 penalty could be imposed on a registered dealer for issue of bogus cenvatable invoices without supplying any goods, under Rule 25(i)(d) and 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, that in this case, the fact that the respondent had issued invoices, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the ground that prior to 01.03.07 there was no provision for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 in respect of such transactions of issue of bogus cenvatable invoices and specific provision for imposition of penalty for such offence were made by introducing sub Rule(2) to Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with effect from 01.03.07. However, I find that Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in case of Vee considered this issue. Kay. Enterprises (Supra) wherein, on para 10 of judgment of Hon ble High Court has held as under:- 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
