9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and the person who enables the same to be done. This distinction in culpability may be required to be gone into from case to case - no substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against assessee. - CEA No.96 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ. Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) for quashing the order dated 20.2.2013, (forwarding letter dated 1.3.2013), Annexure A.1 in Excise Appeal No.397 of 2011 (SM) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submitted that 100% penalty was unjustified. It was further stated that under the rules, imposition of 100% penalty was uncalled for. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.2.2013 noticed as under:- The undisputed facts are that the appellant, a registered dealer, issued bogus invoice without selling any goods to M/s Sonia Overseas on the basis of which M/s Sonia Overseas took the Cenvat Credit. Though specific rule providing for penalty for such offences was introduced by inserting sub Rule (2) to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 w.e.f 1.3.2007, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked sub rule (2) of Rule 26 which could not be invoked, invoking of a wrong rule would not initiate, the show cause notice as the show cause notice clearly alleges that the appellant had issued a bogus invoice without supplying any material to enable his customer or fraudulently avail the Cenvat Credit and sought imposition of penalty for this offence, which in the view of the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court would attract penalty under Rule 25(1) (d) as well as Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. 6. From the above, it emerges that the appellant was a registered dealer who was involved in issuing bogus invoice with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
