Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DUGGAR FIBER PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of penalty u/r 26 - Issue of bogus invoices - Held that:- On plain reading of the provisions it is clear that any person who is dealing with the excisable goods in any manner is liable to be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As per the allegation alleged against the appellants it is clear that appellants were not dealing with excisable goods and only issuing the invoices. - To impose penalty the person who is issuing the invoices without delivering the goods t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri Jitendra Singh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeals against the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that an investigation was conducted at the end of the manufacturer buyer to whom the main appellant issued invoices. The allegation of the Revenue is that as the transporting vehicle are not capable of transporti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring on behalf of the appellant submits that in this case invoices have been issued during the period December, 2004 to January, 2005 and show cause notice has been issued on 5-12-2005 by invoking extended period of limitation. Therefore, penalty is not imposable. He further submits that during the relevant period the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not in the statute to impose the penalty on the appellant. Therefore, penalty is not imposable as, as per the allega .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icle was a stolen vehicle which is mentioned in the invoices. For that he submits that over loading is a common phenomena for transportation of the goods. Therefore, same cannot be a reason for concluding that vehicle has not transported the goods. For stolen vehicle it is submitted that it is not in the knowledge of the appellant that vehicle was stolen and in their statement they have categorically stated this fact. Therefore, penalty is not imposable. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR oppose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as it is admitted by the appellant themselves, the vehicle was stolen and therefore, goods cannot be transported by the vehicle. Moreover, the buyer in his statement has categorically stated that they have not received the goods and received only the invoices. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellants are rightly imposed. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case penalty has been imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version