Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (6) TMI 611 - Central Excise
Head Note / Extract:
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - allegation of facilitating Bluplast Industries Ltd. for taking fraudulent Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by M/s Shah Foils Ltd. without supply of the goods - Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR - HELD THAT:- The charge was made of abatement in passing on fraudulent Cenvat Credit to M/s Bluplast Industries Ltd. on the invoices issued by M/s Shah Foils Ltd. without supply of the goods. It is found that on the same investigation and on the same facts a show cause notice was also issued to M/s Shah Foils Ltd. making the same allegation in the case of SHAH FOILS LIMITED, SHRI KARTIK R SHAH, SHRI RAMESH M SHAH VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -SURAT-I, II, RAJKOT, AHMEDABAD-III [2019 (1) TMI 1162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] that the M/s Shah Foils Ltd. passed on the fraudulent credit by issuing invoices without supply of the goods. The said charge was set aside by this tribunal and the same was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus this tribunal in the case of M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. has held that the contention of the revenue is not sustainable regarding charge of issuance of invoices without actual clearance of goods. On this basis only present appellant were imposed penalty under Rule 26. Since, the tribunal in the above decision clearly held that the goods have been supplied along with invoices. The charges against the present appellants are not sustainable. The appellants are not liable for penalty under Rule 26 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.