9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring, Ram Talai, G.T. Road, Amritsar. On investigation by the Department, it was learnt that with effect from 1-7-96 onwards the said premises were taken back by the owner on account of non-payment of rent. A statement was recorded from Shri Hem Raj Jain, partner of the appellants on 31-12-98 in which he admitted that they had been issuing modvatable invoices from 1-7-96 onwards without actually receiving the excisable goods as they were not having any registered godown. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellants and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Amritsar vide his order dated 31-8-99 held that all the invoices issued by them during the period from 1-7-96 to 31-12-98 were ab initio invalid as they were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le invoices under Rule 57GG. He observed that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, every registration certificate is valid only for the premises specified in such certificate. Subsequent to the surrender of or parting with the registered premises from their possession, the appellants ceased to be a registered dealer even though they might not have formally surrendered their registration which in any case was no longer valid in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 174. He observed that the premises from where the appellants were allegedly running their business were not registered with the Central Excise Department and since the modvatable invoices issued to the appellants relate to the period when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdered by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise in his order apart from imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on them. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, in his order has set aside the amount of duty/credit ordered to be recovered from the party by the original authority on the ground that there is no provision under Rule 57-I to recover the Modvat credit from a registered dealer. He has, however, sustained the penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs imposed on the party. The part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which the recovery of amount of Rs. 25,13,825/- from the appellants is set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not contested by the Revenue. It is observed that the original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
