9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which M/s Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. took credit of Rs. 1,59,200/-. The invoices were allegedly issued without ever supplying any goods. M/s Talbros Automotive Components (Talbros for short) had allegedly received such invoices (without goods) issued by several other suppliers also. The DGCEI made a case and issued Show Cause Notices to M/s Talbros as well as the appellants alongwith other such suppliers. M/s. Talbros and the 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 Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises Vs. CCE - 2011 (266) ELT 436 (P&H) which in effect held that when such a person purports to sell goods with the invoices, it cannot be said that there are no goods involved or that he was not concerned in selling of goods. The said judgement has been followed by CESTAT in the case of CCE Vs. Navneet Agarwal - 2012 (276) ELT 515 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equential 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. The other contention of the appellants is that the penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed as there were no goods involved. It is seen that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana 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 pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
