TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Limited is engaged in the manufacture of Copper Tubes and have availed cenvat credit of Rs. 23,26,834/- against 10 invoices issued by M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited. On investigation it was found out that no goods were supplied by M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited and only invoices had been issued. Proceedings were initiated and original adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Navneet Agarwal, Director of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. On an appeal filed by Shri Navneet Agarwal, impugned order has been passed wherein, penalty imposed Shri Navneet Agarwal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned DR. In this case, the issue as to whether Shri Navneet Agarwal is liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 when the Rule 26(2) was not in force. For ready reference, Rule 25 and 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are reproduced as below :- Rule 25-Confiscation and Penalty (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person or a warehouse or a registered dealer;- (a) remove any exciseable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any exciseable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. 5. After considering the issue and relevant rules the Hon'ble High Court observed as follows in Para 10 of the decision in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises:- 10. Inspite of? non-applicability of Rule 26(2), penalty could be levied as the appellant was concerned in selling or dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation inasmuch as the appellant claimed to have sold the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
