9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. As it is an admitted position that respondent has never dealt with the goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1038/2008 - Final Order No. A/60659/2017-SM(BR) - Dated:- 18-4-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri R.K. Sharma, AR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that as respondent had never dealt with the goods, therefore, during the impugned period as per Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 penalty is not imposable. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me. 3. Heard the ld. AR and perused the record. 4. During the intervening period, there was no provision to impose the penalty on the respondent under Rule 25/26 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), dt. 1-3-2007 and during the relevant period there was no provision under law for imposition of penalty for issuance of invoices without actual supply of material. In view of the above discussion, I find that penalty is not imposable under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellants. Therefore, I set aside the order appeale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
