9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vember 2005). (ii) Order-in-Appeal No. 326-CE/NOIDA/2010 dated 30.07.2010 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty of Rs. 60000/- under Rule 26 ibid (period April 2004 - September 2005) (iii) Order-in-Appeal No. 237-CE/APPL /NOIDA/2010 dated 30.07.2010 which upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty of Rs. 160000/- under Rule 26 ibid (Period April 2004 - September 2005). 2. The essential facts of the three appeals are the same but for the amounts involved and therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by common order. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellants are registered dealer. During the period mentioned against the respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposable under Rule 26(2) as the amendment to Rule 26 ibid was effective from 01.03.1007. Ld. DR contended that the case has to be decided on its own merit and there is no reason to keep it pending. The Truck owners have also stated that they did not transport goods from M/s. Pasondia and M/s. Pasondia also admitted that they never supplied any goods and only issued invoices. None of these statements have been retracted. 5. I have considered the facts and submission of both sides. As regards the contention that the penalty Rule 26 ibid was not imposable on the dealers during the relevant period, the appellants have relied upon the stay order passed by Tribunal in the case of Ambay Gupta Vs. CCE, Faridabad 2012 (281) ELT 639 (Tri.-Del. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. The appellant 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. We are, thus unable to hold that appellant was not liable to pay any penalty. 6. Thus penalty on the appellants can be imposed and it is all the more so because in the present case, as has been mentioned earlier there were goods supplied but the said goods were not relatable to the invoices issued by the appellants. 7. In the present case, as has been mentioned earlier, the evidence is clearcut including the confessional statement of the appellants which was never retracted. The fact is that as a deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
