9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eserves some leniency in the quantum of penalty. Issuance of cenvatable invoices without supply of goods for passing out fraudulent credit - Held that: - the penalty is imposable u/r 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On the same observation as made hereinabove, rule 26(2) came into effect on 01.03.2007; accordingly, penalty deserved to be reduced. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/1237, 1250, 1278 to 1280/11 E/1404 & 1471/12 - A/85711-85717/17/SMB - Dated:- 3-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair These appeals relate to the issue of imposition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 lakhs Kedarnath Dubey ₹ 2 lakhs Pramod Singh ₹ 2 lakhs 2. Shri V.S. Sejpal, ld. counsel appeared on behalf of appellant Minaz Gadhia. However, none appeared for appellants Parmeshwari Steels, Kedarnath Dubey and Pramod Singh. He submits that appellant Minaz Gadhia is engaged only for sale of bazaar scrap to various manufacturing units and he has nothing to do with the issuance of fraudulent cenvat credit invoices. The cenvat credit invoices were issued by registered dealer and credit was availed by manufacturers who have purchased the bazaar scrap. Therefore, he is not beneficiary to wrong availment of credit passed on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is arranged from the buyer of the bazaar scrap in favour of the registered dealer and against the cheque he used to collect the cash after deduction of the 30-40% of the modvat credit by the registered dealer and the said cash was retained by him as a sale proceeds of bazaar scrap which he has supplied to the industries. Therefore he was actively involved in the entire modus operandi of wrong passing of credit. As regards other three appellants he submits that all the appellants, Parmeshwari Steels, Kedarnath Dubey and Pramod Singh were involved in issuance of registered dealer invoices for passing of illegal cenvat credit therefore they were rightly imposed the penalties under Rule 26. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Steels, Kedarnath Dubey, Pramod Singh they are the persons who were directly involved in issuance of cenvatable invoices without supply of goods for passing out fraudulent credit. However in their case also the penalty is imposable under rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On the same observation as made hereinabove, rule 26(2) came into effect on 01.03.2007; accordingly, penalty deserved to be reduced. In case of Parmeshwari Steels the penalty of ₹ 7 lakhs is reduced to ₹ 4 lakhs. In case of Kedarnath Dubey and Pramod Singh, penalty of ₹ 2 lakh each is reduced to ₹ 1 lakh each. 6. As per my above discussion, the impugned order stands modified to the above extent. The appeals are partly allowed in the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
