9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing fake invoices showing sale of copper wire enabling the manufacturers to take credit. He also stated that he also issued fake bills of entry to support his action in issuing invoices. He claimed that he used to receive cheque payment and return money to the supplier by way of self cheque or by way of cash after taking his commission. He categorically stated that he has not supplied any goods with the invoices issued by him as a dealer. 4. Consequent to this, the officers have taken the statement of Shri Rajesh Goel, director of the appellant on 18.1.2006 and he claimed that he has received the goods alongwith invoices but at the same time debited irregularly availed credit amounting to Rs.76,715/- on 18.1.2006 and there was no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were issued without supply of goods and that the manufacturer who received the invoices has arranged goods on their own. 7. Alternatively learned Advocate submits that the benefit of concessional penalty under proviso to section 11AC should be extended in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of K.P.Pouches Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi). 8. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. I find that Shri Sunil Mittal, proprietor admitted having merely issued invoices without supplying the goods mentioned in the said invoices. He also admitted that issuance of invoices was based on the fake bills of entry to show that as if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities below, an option to pay 25% of penalty imposed under section 11AC should be extended in view of the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P.Pouches Pvt.Ltd. also deserves to be accepted. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for sustaining penalty on the appellant director in view of the version of the department that the appellant-company has not received the goods and therefore, he should not have dealt with goods. 10. In view of the above, (a) The appeal filed by the appellant director is allowed. (b) The penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant company is set aside. (c) The order of the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
