9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt of goods - HELD THAT:- The adjudged demands against the duty evasion having been confirmed against the main noticee SPPL, the issue in respect of duty evasion and consequent confirmation of demands in this case has become final. In this context, it is found that legal provisions under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 clearly provide that any person, who issues an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods, on the basis of which the main noticee SPPL had taken ineligible CENVAT credit, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. On careful reading of the documents on record, it is noticed that the appellants have admitted that they had issued the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09/APPEALS THANE/TR/2020-21 dated 28.07.2020 (referred to, as 'the impugned order') passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-Thane), GST & Central Excise, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai. 3.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal, are summarized herein below: 3.2 The appellants herein, inter alia, are engaged in supplying goods viz. 'Absolac ABS Resin' to M/s Synoprene Polymers Limited (SPPL), which is a sister concern of the appellants during the disputed period 2009-2010. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, on the basis of intelligence received and developed by them. had conducted an investigation into alleged evasion of central excise duty in effecting clandestine clearances by SPPL, inter alia, using th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SCN dated 28.06.2014 issued to the main noticee M/s. Synoprene Polymers Private Limited (SPPL), Mumbai and various other co-noticees including the appellants herein, the duty demands were confirmed in the Order-in-Original dated 12.09.2019, demanding Rs. 58,07,871/- on the main noticee, who had evaded central excise duty and penalties were also imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Besides the appellants and other co-noticees were also imposed with a penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I find that there is no order by higher appellate authorities either in setting aside or rejecting the confirmation of adjudged demands against main noticee SPPL vide the original order dated 12.09.2019 or pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of 14 consignments (11 pertaining to S.K. Oswal and 3 pertains to Ajramar Impex) no goods were received by them from the appellants, was disowned by the appellants; and transport records for confirmation of movement of vehicles submitted by them, have not been examined by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, he submitted that the penalty imposed on the appellants in the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is clear that the adjudged demands against the duty evasion having been confirmed against the main noticee SPPL, the issue in respect of duty evasion and consequent confirmation of demands in this case has become final. In this context, I find that legal provisions under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
