9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) has discussed this very issue and has come to a finding that even in such cases, penalty can be imposed. However, penalty is reduced to 25% - No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/476/2012-EX(SM) - F. Order No. 53457/2014 - Dated:- 20-8-2014 - Mr. R.K. Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D. Singh, D.R. JUDGEMENT Per R.K. Singh : The appellants have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 162-163/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2011 dated 14.11.2011 in terms of which a penalty of ₹ 1,62,400/- imposed vide Order-in-Original No. 18/ADC/Adjn/2010-11 dated 15.12.2010 has been upheld. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any goods. They have however contended that : (1) Once the case has been settled by the Settlement Commissioner for M/s Talbros Automotive Components, the case got settled for all noticees. They cited the judgement in the case of S.K. Colombowala Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai - 2007 (220) ELT 492 (Tri.-Mumbai). (2) A penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 cannot be imposed as there are no goods involved. They referred to the Cestat Larger Bench judgment in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri.-LB), wherein it has been held that penalty under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable when there are no goods involved. (3) The penalty impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have conceded that the invoices were issued without ever supplying any goods. As regards their contention that the order of Settlement Commission in respect of M/s. Talbros would cover them too, it is seen that the Settlement Commission itself did not admit their case and such non-admission was not on the ground that they would be covered by the main order in case of Talbros. The judgement in the case in K.I. International Ltd. (supra) takes note of the judgement in the case of S.K. Colombowala (supra) and holds that the benefit of the Settlement Commission s order cannot be extended to those who never approached the Settlement Commission. The ld. Advocate stated that the order in case of K.L. International Ltd. has been staye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealing 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. 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. In the light of the foregoing the appellants contention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
