TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsport Carriers and M/s Deepak Roadways had helped the dealers to raise bogus/fake modvatable documents under the Central Excise law in order to fraudulently help the buyers to avail modvat credit. They had not transported the goods, but yet, had issued blank books of G.R.s and had thus, abetted in passing of the fake/bogus modvatable documents to various manufacturers resulting into loss of duty amounting to Rs.62.90 lacs to the Government. – Penalty on transporters confirmed - 50 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None For The Respondent. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the respondent-transporters, who are alleged to be transporters of the imported consignments, as it was prima facie found that the respondent-transporter had facilitated the issuance of blank G.R.s in favour of various buyers, to whom the show cause notice had also been given. After hearing the respective parties, the adjudicating authority found that the goods imported had actually not been transported by the respondent-transporters and they had issued fake G.R.s making them liable for penal action under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the Rules'). The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each on the transporters for abetting the fraud. An appeal was filed by the respondent before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id dealer to raise the bogus/fake modvat credit under the Central Excise Rules in respect of said goods which were never received by the said dealers in his godown at the first instance and as such helped the procurer of the invoices to avail modvat credit fraudulently. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to notice the criminal intentions of the transporters as they had handed over the blank books of the G.R.s without actually providing any transport for carrying the goods. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 209-A of the Rules, any person who is concerned in transport or deals with any of the excisable goods in any manner and knows that he has reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the present case, is wholly erroneous, as it is clear from the language of Rule 209-A that whoever deals in any manner with the goods which he has reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation and whoever transports such goods, shall be liable to penalty not exceeding three times of the value of said goods or Rs.5000/- whichever is higher. In view of the above, the question of law as posed in this appeal is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent. Resultantly, we allow the appeals, set aside the order dated 16.7.2004, passed by the Tribunal and restore the order dated 21.11.2002, passed by the Commissioner, qua the respondents in CEA No.50 of 2006 and CEA No.77 of 2006. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
