9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have issued invoices the said provisions was not there. Therefore, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not imposable on the appellants under the old provisions relating to the impugned period. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/59893 & 59908/2013-EX(SM) - Final Order Nos. A/51174-51175/2015-EX(SM)(BR) - Dated:- 7-4-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri Jitendra Singh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the end of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant has not supplied the goods as the vehicles which have transported the goods either is not having the capacity to transport the goods or the vehicle was a stolen vehicle which is mentioned in the invoices. For that he submits that over loading is a common phenomena for transportation of the goods. Therefore, same cannot be a reason for concluding that vehicle has not transported the goods. For stolen vehicle it is submitted that it is not in the knowledge of the appellant that vehicle was stolen and in their statement they have categorically stated this fact. Therefore, penalty is not imposable. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR oppose the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that in this case on limitation the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Date upto Not exceeding the Duty or ₹ 10,000/- whichever is greater 1-3-2002 11-5-2007 Not exceeding the duty or ₹ 2000/- whichever is greater 11-5-2007 Till date 7. On plain reading of the said provisions it is clear that any person who is dealing with the excisable goods in any manner is liable to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As per the allegation alleged against the appellants it is clear that appellants were not dealing with excisable goods and only issuing the invoices. 8. To impose penalty the person who is issuing the invoices without deliveri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
