TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held valid to enable credit by the dealer as it itself fictitious because the present dealer has purchased from M/s Ankit Textiles who is no more in existence and fictitious firm and, therefore, the present appellant could not have availed cenvat credit and, therefore, the authorities below as well as learned Tribunal have rightly confirmed ultimately by reducing the amount of penalty from ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following two substantial questions. a. Whether penalty under Rule 13 can be imposed upon the dealer when he has not dealt with the inputs or capital goods? b. Whether penalty can be imposed in a situation where order demanding from the appellant credit wrongly availed is set aside. 2. We have heard Mr.Hardik Modh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Gaurang Bhatt, learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Credit Rules 2002 to the present appellant directing to show cause as to why penalty of equivalent amount of availing cenvat credit of ₹ 7,36,707/- should not be imposed upon it. Upon the show cause notice, the present appellant gave explanation and claimed that M/s Shiv Enterprise did not know M/s Ankit Textiles or its proprietor and they have transacted through the agent and paid 73 che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself is indicative of contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. Rule 13 empowers for imposition of penalty not exceeding on excisable goods in respect of which any contravention has been committed. 6. The authorities below as well as learned Tribunal have considered the factual scenario in its proper perspective and has clearly recorded the finding that availment of cenvat credit on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
