9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r scrap was supplied to M/s. Silver Ispat Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ishu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd., M/s. ISI Bars Ltd., M/s. Maulairaj Steel Pvt. Ltd. The scrap was supplied in cash whereas the invoices were issued by some registered dealer M/s. Indian Steel Company, M/s. Jai Ambe Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. The case of the department against Minaz Gadhia is he has aided and abetted in issuance of the invoice through registered dealer and he was involved in the entire transaction wherein the registered dealer have fraudulently extended the cenvat credit to various manufacturers to whom M/s. Al-karim Scrap had sold bazaar scrap in cash. Therefore, a total penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs were imposed on Minaz Gadhia under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. Even if Rule 26(2) is applicable it is only on those persons who are involved in issuance of cenvatable invoices and aiding and abetting in the said offence. The present appellant has neither issued any invoice nor aided and abetted for issuance of such invoices, as he had no control over registered dealer who issued invoices. He also submits that in the overall case of wrong passing of the credit, Minaz Gadhia is not alone whereas there are other bazaar scrap supplier are also involved, for this reason also such penalty imposed is on a higher side. 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that as the case of fraudulent passing of credit by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire modus operandi. Therefore he was liable for penalty under Rule 26. However, there is a force in the submission of the ld. counsel that penalty was imposed for the period March 2006 to October 2007. However, whether penalty is imposable under Rule 26(2) which came into effect from 01.03.2007 for the substantial period the provision of rule 26(2) was not applicable prior to 01.03.2007. Considering this position and overall facts of the case, I am of the view that the appellant deserves some leniency in the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, penalty in case of Shri Minaz Gadhia are reduced as below:- Appeal no. Penalty imposed (in Rs. ) Penalty reduced (in Rs. ) E/1237/11 2 lakhs 1 lakh E/1250/11 2 lakhs 1 lakh E/1404/12 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
