9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue invoices without the related goods based on invoices issued by M/s. Pasondia again without the related goods. In such a situation No mitigating factors favouring the appellants at all. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/3719/2010-EX[SM], Appeal No. E/3720/2010-EX[SM], Appeal No. E/3721/2010-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 53342-53344/2014 - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S.D. Gaur, Consutant For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh; The appellants have filed these appeals against the following (impugned) Orders-in-Appeal. (i) Order-in-Appeal No. 238-CE/APPL/NOIDA/2010 dated 30.07.2010 which upheld the Order-in-Original imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by the appellants which were claimed to have been received under the invoices of M/s. Pasondia were not actually sold by M/s. Pasondia at all and only invoices were issued by them. In fact Shri Manoj Jain proprietor of the appellants in his statement clearly admitted that they had not purchased any CR strips from M/s. Pasondia during the periods involved in all the three appeals and they had only received invoices from them. He admitted that he issued the invoices to the purchasers of CR strips on the basis of the invoices received from M/s. Pasondia although the CR strips supplied by him (i.e. appellants) were purchased from the market. 4. The appellants have argued that the main case against M/s. Pasondia is still pending. He furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y orders of this Court referred to above which are not shown to be distinguishable. Accordingly, we hold that the amended provisions will not apply to the acts committed prior thereto. 10 In spite 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 inasmuch as the appellant claimed to have sold the goods in respect 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. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
