9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant s offence falls under Rule 26 (2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as the appellant had issued incorrect LR in respect of goods on which the fraudulent credit was availed by M/s. Taha wires. The aforesaid amended Rule 26 came into effect from 01.04.2007 whereas in the present case period involved is 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 (upto December, 2006) - Since the appellant s case falls under Rule 26 (2) (ii) but the same is not existing at the relevant time the appellant cannot be penalized when the goods dealt with by him was not liable for confiscation on the ground that the same was admittedly duty paid. The penalty is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve carefully considered the submission made by Learned AR and perused the records. I find that the penalty under Rule 26 was imposed upon the appellant for an amount of Rs. 3 Lakh on the alleged charge that the appellant being transporter has issued an incorrect LR knowingly showing the destination Daman/Silvassa but the goods were delivered at Bhiwandi. I find that the adjudicating authority imposed the penalty on the ground that the appellant dealt with the goods which were liable for confiscation. In this regard, the relevant Rule 26 prevailing at the relevant time i.e. 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 (upto December, 2006) reads as under:- Rule 26. Penalty for certain offences. - Any person who acquires possession of, or is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) any other document or abets in 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 amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. From the plain reading of the above amended rule 26 it is clear that the appellant s offence falls under Rule 26 (2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as the appellant had issued incorrect LR in respect of goods on which the fraudulent credit was availed by M/s. Taha wires. The aforesaid amended Rule 26 came into effect from 01.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
