9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een debated before me at length - There was no intention to evade payment of duty which can be attributed to the company - Rule 25(1)(d) could be applied to a person who was concerned in selling or dealing with goods which were liable to confiscation - This view was taken in proceedings where the department proposed to penalize not only the dealer who issued invoices without goods but also his customer who took CENVAT credit on the basis of such invoices without receiving goods - There is no evidence of their customers having been penalized – Penalty imposed on the assessee waived and stayed till the disposal – Stay granted. - Appeal Nos. E/3355-3356/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2013 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere held to be applicable to a dealer who claimed to have sold goods under cover of cenvatable invoices but did not actually supply the goods. The learned Superintendent(A.R.) further points out that, in separate proceedings launched against the customers of the appellant, the question whether penalty could be imposed on them under Rule 25 is pending with the adjudicating authorities concerned. 2. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel endeavours to distinguish the cited case of M/s Vee Kay Enterprises and submits that, in that case, not only the dealer who issued invoices without goods but also his customer who took CENVAT credit on the strength of such invoices without receiving goods were sought to be penalized in the same proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 25(1)(d) could be applied to a person who was concerned in selling or dealing with goods which were liable to confiscation. This view was taken in proceedings where the department proposed to penalize not only the dealer who issued invoices without goods but also his customer who took CENVAT credit on the basis of such invoices without receiving goods. In other words, the penal liability of the dealer, in the cited case, stemmed from the totality of the facts and circumstances of that case. On the contrary, in the instant case, admittedly, the dealer was singled out for penalization. There is no evidence of their customers having been penalized. In the result, M/s Vee Kay Enterprises (supra) cannot be blindly followed as a precedent for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
