9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of Rule 26 (2) of CER, 2002, which provision was inserted in the Rules vide N/N. 8/2007-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2007 - But the period in dispute in the instant matter is much prior to 1st March 2007. In any case there is nothing on record to evidence the fact that ICICI Bank has played any role in getting the forged certificate - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) when supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by the said united Nations or an international Organisation and approved by the Government of India , from the whole of- (i) the duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); and (ii) the additional duty of excise leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957): Provided that before clearance of the said goods, the manufacturer produces before the Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Government of India. It has emerged in the investigation that the certificates utilized for seeking exemption under the notification were forged inasmuch as those certificates did not bear the genuine signatures of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Finance Ministry. Further, the Finance Ministry was not the concerned Line Ministry for the purpose of certifying the goods as required for execution of a project as envisaged in the notification. The allegations against the ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai as a project implementing authority was that they were instrumental in issuing certificates and sending them to Ministry of Finance which was not the concerned line Ministry for the project. Further, it has been alleged that ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2002 on the appellant. 6. Shri M. R. Sharma, Ld A. R. for Revenue on the contrary has argued in favor of the impugned order imposing penalty. He has contended that Commissioner has rightly invoked Rule 26 against the appellant because by indulging in conspiracy to procure the forged certificates, the appellant Bank has actually concerned itself with the removal of excisable goods from the factory of the manufacturer without payment of duty under the exemption notification. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. I find merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. I note that the penalty has been imposed on the appellant Bank for abetting evasion of excise duty by indulging in abetting forgery of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
