9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond stage dealers, who had purchased the goods from the Respondent and issued invoices to the manufacturers. The respondents are first stage dealers and it is the only evidence against the respondent that the premises declared by them being taken on lease, found to be not genuine when contradictions were noticed relating to the Rent Agreement. Accordingly, it is presumed that the goods in question purchased by them and CENVAT Credit ultimately passed on to the second stage dealer/manufacturer could not also be genuine. There is no conspiracy theory established by the Revenue involving the manufacturer of inputs, and first stage dealer/ second stage dealer and the end user manufacturer of the inputs involving the respondent. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner imposed penalty of ₹ 8.00 lakhs under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and penalties on other second stage dealers under the same Rules. The Revenue is in appeal for enhancement of the penalty. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal has submitted that the appellant mis-declared their premises, which was not in their possession and obtained dealer registration on 5.12.2003. In obtaining the registration certification, they declared the office located at Ward No. 07, Motia Khan, Subhash Nagar, Mandi, Gobindgarh and produced a Rent Agreement with the owner. Later, on investigation, it was found that the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrongly came to the conclusion that in absence of storage facility, passing of the CENVAT Credit of duty paid goods as shown in the first stage dealer s invoice when sold to the second stage dealers or to the manufacturers is inadmissible. He has further submitted that imposition of penalty for issuance of CENVAT Credit has been brought to the statute book by amending Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 only w.e.f. 1.3.2007 by Notification No. 08/2007-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2007. Therefore, imposition of penalty on them is unsustainable in law. Further, he has submitted that merely because there was some contradiction in the Rent Agreement in hiring the registered premises cannot the invalidate invoices issued by them mentioning the other d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y established by the Revenue involving the manufacturer of inputs, and first stage dealer/ second stage dealer and the end user manufacturer of the inputs involving the respondent. The Commissioner imposed penalty when contradictions were noticed in the declaration filed for obtaining Dealer s Registration and also the quantum of penalty accordingly determined. Since no other evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to establish any complicity on the part of the respondent, we are of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the Revenue s appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
