9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat company but was not looking after the business affairs of that company. It has been revealed from the facts of the case as Shri V. K. Madan in his statement admitted that he was looking after affairs of the company - Admittedly, no efforts has been made by the Revenue to find out the role of the appellant for availing fraudulent cenvat credit by M/s UEL - the penalty on Neeraj Thakur is not imposable. Penalties imposed on Lalit Thakuria, Ajay Goel and Anant Bomb - HELD THAT:- The appellants are C F agents to clear the goods to UEL of different suppliers. It has been alleged that goods have not delivered to UEL on the basis of the statement of the transporters recorded during the course of investigation. No physical verification was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Directors of VKM having 6.42% of share capital and the remaining appellants are C F agents who cleared the goods to UEL from different suppliers. During the course of investigation, it was found that UEL is availing cenvat credit on inputs without physically receiving the goods. Therefore, the C F agents have not supplied the goods, consequently liable to penalised under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for imposition of penalty and the appellant Neeraj Thakur being Director of VKM is to be penalised under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 being Director. Therefore, show cause notice was issued on 06.05.2010 proposing disallowance of cenvat credit to UEL and to impose penalty on the appellants. The matter was adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, no penalty can be imposed. 4. On behalf of the other appellants, learned Counsel submits that penalty has been imposed on the basis of third party evidence i.e. the statement of transporter and none of the transporter was called for examination in chief and no cross examination was granted to the appellant. It is his submission that the appellant has supplied the goods and received the payment through account payee cheque and the said goods have been used by the buyer in manufacturing of the final goods. It is his submission that none of the transporter has asked if they have not transported goods where the goods have been delivered. Therefore, penalties cannot be imposed on the basis of third party evidence without any corroborat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the legal issues raised by the appellant while imposing penalty on the appellants. 9. In the case of penalty imposed on Neeraj Thakur, I find that the penalty has been imposed being Director of M/s VKM Electricals Limited. It is a fact on record that the appellant was mere Director of that company but was not looking after the business affairs of that company. It has been revealed from the facts of the case as Shri V. K. Madan in his statement admitted that he was looking after affairs of the company. As Hon ble High court held in the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg (surpa) that the actual involvement of the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
