Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 201 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - issue of fake invoices without receipt of duty paid goods - Held that: - it is established that dealer M/s Dhanlaxmi Steels has fraudulently issued fake invoices, therefore Cenvat Credit on such fake invoices cannot be allowed. It is settled law that fraud vitiates everything therefore whether there is involvement of Appellant in such fraud, Cenvat Credit on such invoices cannot be allowed - it is established that the Appellant was very much party to the fraud committed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Steels. In such situation, the Appellants submission regarding receipt of input and use thereof in production is of no help to them. Even if it is accepted that Appellant have received the input, since it has no linkage with duty payment by the manufacturer the credit on fake invoices cannot be allowed. Penalty u/s 11 AC read with Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 - Held that: - M/s. Mohit Ispat Ltd. indulged themselves in fraudulently availing Cenvat Credit. Therefore the proviso of section 11A is clearly invokable consequently section 11 AC which has almost same ingredients as in proviso, the penalty was rightly imposed. Personal penalty on the Appellants namely Shri Harshvardhan, Director and Shri Dayanand Shenai, General Manager of M/s Mohit Ispat Ltd. - Held that: - the penalty on these Appellants were imposed u/r 26(2)(ii) of CER, 2002. The said provision was inserted in Rule 26 w.e.f. 01.03.2007 vide N/N. 18/2007-CE (N.T.). The period involved in present case is October, 2006. It is a settled law that the penal provision, which was not existing at the time of committing offence and the same was enacted subsequently, cannot be invoked retrospectively - penalty set aside. Decided partly in favor of appellant.
|