9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso cannot be imposed. Penalty on co-appellant - Held that: - the co-appellant has misinterpreted himself as the second stage dealer whereas the co-appellant has the third stage dealer but, the payment of duty has not been disputed. Therefore, penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable on the co-appellant as ingredients of the said provisions are missing, but for the breach of misrepresentation has committed by the co-appellant, therefore, penalty u/r 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable on co-appellant. Appeal allowed in part. - E/10180/2016 - A/13611/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For Appellant(s): Shri Anand Nainavati, Advocate For Respondent(s): Shri A Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which they have paid duty on the said goods and have been cleared on payment of duty then the payment of duty shall be considered as reversal of cenvat credit in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises 2013 (294) ELT. 203 (Bom). 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the co-appellant submits that as per the Rule 16 of the CCR, 2004, the main appellant was entitled to take Cenvat Credit as the goods which has been cleared by them were manufactured by the main appellant only. Therefore, when they are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit in that terms, no demand of duly is sustainable. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the co-appellant. Therefore, the impugned order of imposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e co-appellant company, I find that the co-appellant has misinterpreted himself as the second stage dealer whereas the co-appellant has the third stage dealer but, the payment of duty has not been disputed. Therefore, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable on the co-appellant as ingredients of the said provisions are missing, but for the breach of misrepresentation has committed by the co-appellant, therefore, penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable on co-appellant. Therefore, penalty of ₹ 5000/- is confirmed on the co- appellant. 9. In view of the above analysis the following order is passed: a) The goods are held not liable to confiscation, therefore, no redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
