TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises. I find that they have offered to reverse the CENVAT credit in question and they did so. On these facts, the collusion between the assesseee on the one hand and M/s Aditya Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Usha Enterprises on the other is fairly clear. The penalties imposed on them under Rule 26 are sustainable in principle. Assessee did claim CENVAT credit on the strength of invoices issued by M/s Usha Enterprises who gave the statement that they had not supplied any materials under cover of the invoices. Moreover, the assessee voluntarily reversed the irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The assesee’s conduct did not in any way conflict with the statements given by the parties who issued invoices. In the circumstances, the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities below took the view that these appellants played a role in fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit by M/s Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. On this basis, the appellants were held liable to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 3. Appeal No. E/1410/2010, which was filed by M/s Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. against the aforesaid demand of duty and penalty, was dismissed by this Bench vide Final order No. E/597/2012 dated 31/8/2012 which reads as follows:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner s order sustaining an Order-in-Original appropriating Rs.1,12,521/- towards CENVAT credit on inputs and an amount of Rs.1,924/- towards interest thereon and imposing a penalty of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty was not under protest. This apart, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal are a far cry from the reality which is that the appellant indisputably chose to take CENVAT credit on certain invoices without receipt of the inputs mentioned therein. The show-cause notice issued by the Department clearly attributed fraud to the appellant, which is one of the grounds under Section 11AC for imposition of penalty. The show-cause notice also invoked Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which expressly made Section 11AC applicable to a case of irregular and fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. In this factual scenario, the appellant has no case against the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strength of invoices issued by M/s Usha Enterprises who gave the statement that they had not supplied any materials under cover of the invoices. Moreover, the assessee voluntarily reversed the irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The assesee s conduct did not in any way conflict with the statements given by the parties who issued invoices. In the circumstances, the aforesaid plea contained in the written submissions cannot be accepted. The penal liability for issuing statutory invoices without supply of goods was recognized by the legislature as early as in 2007 vide sub-rule 2 of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants are liable to be penalized under this provision of law. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
