TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vee Kay Enterprises v. CCE [2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - E/1232/2010-SM(BR) - Final Order No. 1455/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 19-10-2012 - Shri Mathew John, J. Shri S.C. Kamra and G.K. Mahajen, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Bharat Bhushan, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER In this case the appellant had issued 28 invoices during Jan 2007 to March 2007 purporting to cover sale of excisable goods to M/s. Vivek Steels Ltd. showing excise duty of payment Rs. 8,63,680/-. On investigation conducted by Revenue it was seen that no goods were really supplied under the said invoices to M/s. Vivek Steel and only invoices were issued showing supply of goods so that Cenvat credit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (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 thereunder 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.” 6. The Counsel for appellant argues that the case of Revenue is that no excisable goods were sold. So penalty could not have been imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 as it stood at the relevant time because that rule was for imposing penalty on an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 is legal and proper. 9. At this stage the ld. Advocate gross attention of Para 9 of the said order reading as under : “As regards applicability of provisions introduced on 1-3-2007 to alleged acts committed prior to the said date, the matter is covered by orders of this Court referred to above which are not shown to be distinguishable. Accordingly, we hold that the amended provisions will not apply to the acts committed prior thereto”. 8. So he argues that penalty could not have been imposed on the offence under consideration which took place prior to 1-3-2007 and is of the type covered by Rule 26(2) introduced from 1-3-2007. 9. What I find from Para 9 of the order of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
