9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Colombowala (2007 (7) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) 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.I. International Ltd. has been stayed by the High Court, but I find that the stay is an interim stay on condition of 50% deposit and bank guarantee for the remaining amount which obviously means that what has been stayed is the consequential recoveries in terms of that order. As stated earlier, the Settlement Commission itself did not consider that the appellants would be covered by their order in case Talbros. As such, the contention of the appellants in this regard is not sustainable. In the ligh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants approached the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission did not find the appellants case eligible for settlement and therefore the appellants case was not admitted by the Settlement Commission. Consequently the appellants case was adjudicated. The adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that is how the appellants are before this Tribunal. It may be pertinent to mention that at first the adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty on the appellants. However, that order was reviewed and appealed against. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case for de novo adjudication. It was at the time of de novo adjudication that the impugned penalty was imposed and subsequently upheld by Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld. A.R. also cited the judgement of CESTAT in the case of K.I. International Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2012 (282) ELT 67 (Tri.-Chennai) which inter alia holds that the benefit of Settlement Commission s order cannot be extended to the parties which never approached the Settlement Commission. Ld. A.R. also elaborated the extent to which the appellants had gone in committing this fraud. They manipulated the transport documents as on enquiry it was revealed that the vehicle numbers given in invoices pertained to such vehicles which could not have carried such capital goods as mentioned in the invoices. Not only that, the appellants showed purchase of the non-existent goods, and then issued cenvatable invoices for the same non-existent goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises (supra) has discussed this very issue and has come to a finding that even in such cases, penalty can be imposed. The Hon ble High Court observed that the person purporting to sell goods cannot say that he is not concerned with selling of goods and has not contravened the provisions of Rule 25 ibid. Relevant paras (9 10) of the said judgment are below: 9 As regards applicability of provisions introduced on 01.03.2007 to alleged acts committed prior to the said date, the matter is covered by 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
