9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udulent credit. The appellants having issued excise duty invoice without delivery of goods is, therefore, liable for penalty under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner that the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 26(2). However, the penalty of ₹ 22.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant is on the higher side - the imposition of fine of ₹ 5.00 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed in part. - Central Excise Appeal No. 25305/2013 - A/30967/2019 - Dated:- 22-10-2019 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R. Narasimha Murthy, Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Pavan Drugs without actual supply of material. It appeared that M/s Y M Drugs and M/s Pawan Drugs have shown as processed Micro Crystaline Cellulose received by them and shown as supplied Micro Crystaline Cellulose powder to M/s Finechem, another Central Excise dealer and in turn M/s Finechem has shown as supplied Micro Crystaline Cellulose powder received by them to M/s Reliance Cellulose Products Limited for which dealer invoices were issued by them. Basing on the CENVAT invoices issued by M/s Finechem which are issued without actual supply of material mentioned therein, M/s Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. availed CENVAT credit even though they did not receive the goods namely Micro Crystaline Cellulose powder from M/s Finechem. Enq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership firm and per se is not a natural person. Therefore, the provision of imposing penalty would not attract in the instant case. He relied upon the decision in the case of Homag India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, ST Customs, Bangalore reported in [2017(357)E.L.T. 1194 (Tri.-Bang.)] and also M/s Apple Sponge and Power Limited vs. CST, Audit-I reported in [2018(362)E.L.T. 894 (Tri.-Mum.)]. The appellant being a registered dealer is excluded from the purview of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as a registered dealer can be covered only under Rule 25 of Central excise Rules, 2002. He prayed that the penalty may be set aside. 6. The Ld. AR Shri A.V.L.N. Chary supported the findings in the impugned order. He referred to the said pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of section 11AC of the Act in respect of duty, interest and penalty, all proceedings in respect of penalty against other persons, if any, in the said proceedings shall also be deemed to be concluded.] (2) Any person, who issues- (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abetsin making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made there under like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
