9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (for brevity "the Tribunal") in Final Order No.40204/2013. 2.The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- "1.In the facts and circumstances, whether, Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2004 is applicable during the disputed period to the dealers and whether penalty can be imposed on the dealers under the said Rule; 2.In the facts and circumstances, whether, the first respondent is correct in holding that the appellant has not contested the commission of fraud when all along the appellant is contesting and participating in the proceedings; and 3.In the facts and circumstances, whether, the 1st respondent is correct in not considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent/Revenue. 7.The assessee would contend that the first appellate authority erroneously held that the allegation of commission of fraud by the assessee was not contested by the assessee. 8.The learned counsel referred to various observations made in the Order in Original dated 21.01.2010, to buttress his submission that the assessee was contesting the said issue. Therefore, it is submitted that Rule 25 of the Rules would not stand attracted more so when, the assessee is not a manufacturer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. LG Equipments [2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (SC)]. 9.The learned Senior Standing Counsel has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to issue proper invoices disclosing full and true particulars. On facts, the Tribunal approved the finding of the Adjudicating Authority and the first appellate authority that proper invoices were not issued and consequently, there is contravention of Rule 25(a) in respect of duty paid goods supplied to units not availing CENVAT credit. Further, the Tribunal rightly observed that in respect of non-duty paid goods, cleared to the manufacturers, under invoice showing duty payment, there is a clear violation of the Rules with intent to evade payment of excise duty on final products manufactured by paying such duty through fraudulent credit. Thus, the entire dispute revolves on facts, which have been brought out in detail by the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
