9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flagrant violation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Such brazen violation of law in a well-planned fashion deserves no sympathy - reduction of penalty to 25% on dealers does not have the legal backing as there is no provision in Central Excise Act or Central Excise Rules to reduce the penalty on the dealers to 25% Considering the admitted fraud by the appellant and its systematic nature involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturers, M/s Star Wire Ltd. went to the Settlement Commission and the appellant also went to the Settlement Commission in that matter as co-applicant no.4 and that case was settled by the Settlement Commission resulting in imposition of penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on the appellant. The Settlement Commission has given a finding that the applicant and the co-applicants have admitted the charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea is for reduction of penalty to 25% on the basis of the decisions of this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 358-364/2012-SM[BR] dt. 10.04.2012 in the case of M/s Rajdhani Industrial Corp. M/s Bajrang Steel Traders vs. CCE, Delhi-IV and A/50846-50847/2014-SM[BR] dt. 03.03.2014 in the case of M/s Rajdhani Industrial Corp. M/s Bajrang Steel Traders vs. CCE, Delhi-IV. 4. Ld. A.R. submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urer was settled in the Settlement Commission and the culpability of the appellant was established through their own admission and penalty was thus imposed on the appellant by the Settlement Commission. The fact that the appellant had been wantonly issuing bogus invoices to 14 manufacturers without supply of any goods shows systematic and flagrant violation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Such braze ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the admitted fraud by the appellant and its systematic nature involving 14 manufacturers over a period of time, I find that the quantum of penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is fully justified and needs no interference. 7. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
