TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4945/2014 & E/55622/2013 - A/61584-61591/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 25-10-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.Gupta, AR for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The Appeal No.E/55622/2013 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 10 lakh under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the allegation that the appellant has not supplied the inputs alongwith invoices issued to the principal manufacturer. Therefore, the penalty is imposed under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appeals Nos.E/54939-54945/2014 have been filed by the appellants for granting rebate claim but adjusting the same against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the adjustment of rebate claim is not sustainable. In that circumstance, rebate claim be allowed to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submitted that as the appellants were involved in the activity of issuance of invoices without physically despatch of the goods, therefore, the penalty is rightly imposed on the appellants. He relied on the decision of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of M S Metals vs. CCE-2014 (309) ELT 241 (P H) wherein it has been held that although for the period prior to 1.3.2007, Rule 26(2) was not in statute book, in such cases in spite of non applicability of Rule 26(2) for the period prior to 1-3-2007, penalty can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposal to impose penalty under Rule 25(1) (d). In these circumstances, I hold that for the period prior to 1.3.2007, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant for the period, post 1.3.2007, the penalty of ₹ 9,048/- is confirmed. 9. With these observations, the Appeal No.E/55622/2013 is disposed of. 10. Further, Appeals Nos.E/54939-54945/2014 have been filed by the appellants against adjustment of rebate claim sanctioned to the appellant against the penalty imposed on the appellant in Appeal No.E/55622/2013. As the part penalty is not sustainable, therefore the amount of rebate claim is not be adjusted except ₹ 9,048/. 11. In the result, the appeal Nos.E/54939-54945/2014 are allowed subject to the adjustment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
