TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the lower authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,93,182/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that they issued Cenvatable invoices as a second stage dealer in the month of October 2004 without physically supplying the goods, so as to enable the purchaser to avail the benefit of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision applicable to this case, if at all, is Rule 26. Counsel points out a difficulty on the part of the department even in applying this provision to the instant case. It is submitted that no penalty under Rule 26 could be imposed on any dealer prior to 1-3-2007, the date on which sub-rule (2) was added to Rule 26 making those persons liable to penalty who issued invoices without delivery of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions of the counsel. As submitted by him, the show-cause notice invoked Rule 25 for imposing penalty on the appellant on the ground of contravention of provisions of law with intent to evade payment of duty. However, any intent to evade payment of duty has not been established in this case. In the case of Bhagwati Trading Co., this aspect was not examined. Further, the rule making authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
