9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose penalty on ATI under Rule 13(1) of Central Excise Rules 2002 instead of 13(2) mentioned in the show-cause notice. There are no reason to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Commissioner - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 587 of 2009 - A/87458/2019 - Dated:- 4-11-2019 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Kishori Lal, Principal Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Original No.01/MI/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-1. 2. In the interim order, the learned Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case. 4. On the basis of investigation against the Respondent M/s Ashapura Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd. show cause notice was issued to them and also to other noticees alleging fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit and its utilization in claiming rebate of duty from the department. The learned Commissioner has analyzed the evidences on record and arrived at the finding that M/s Ashapura Textile Industries is a bogus unit and created for the purpose of availing fraudulent CENVAT credit on bogus invoices issued. Also, he has recorded that bogus CENVAT credit has been utilized for claiming fraudulent rebate of goods exported even though there is no connection between the goods exported and the goods cleared as mentioned in the ARE-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order had observed that the Respondent Ashapura Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. is a bogus one which had been created to avail bogus credit and pass the same to the merchant exporters for claiming export rebate against exports. Out of the total inadmissible credit of ₹ 4,27,44,288/- the learned adjudicating authority categorically observed that three rebate claims were filed on utilization of credit of ₹ 10,38,423/-. The learned Commissioner rejecting the said rebate claims in the impugned order observed that the credit has been utilized in the respective invoices while clearing the goods from the factory itself is inadmissible. While imposing penalty on the Respondent, the learned Commissioner has analyzed the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under this sub rule is not in terms of provisions under section 11AC. Under this sub-rule minimum penalty of ₹ 10,000/- is to be imposed. It cannot go up to the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention has been committed . In this case the excisable goods involved are the goods exported under the ARE-Is. This rule does not have the requirement that the duty mentioned in the rule should have been payable by the person taking credit. So on careful consideration f all the facts and law, I come to the conclusion that penalty under sub-rule 13(1) of CET 2002 is leviable. Though this sub-rule is not specifically mentioned all the facts relevant for the offence are mentioned in the show-cause notice. It is a well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
