TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir order would be extended in the case of the appellant as well. Penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules - Held that: - the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in V.K. Enterprises v. CCE, [2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], had held that the person purporting to sell goods could not say that he was not concerned with selling of goods and had not contravened the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules. In such cases, the penalty was held to be imposable - the Tribunal had correctly held that the quantum of penalty in the circumstances of the present case could not be faulted on the ground that it was excessive. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C.E.A. Nos. 98 of 2014 and 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 24- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is engaged in supply of capital goods. On 24-11-2006, the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) on the basis of intelligence visited the premises of M/s. TACL and summoned records for scrutiny. On the basis of the investigation, the DGCEI opined that the assessee supplied cenvatable invoices to M/s. TACL without supplying capital goods and violated the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (in short, the Rules ). The DGCEI vide show cause notice dated 5-3-2008 called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules should not be imposed. The assessee apart from M/s. TA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 14-11-2011, Annexure A.6, the order dated 29-12-2010 was upheld. The assessee filed second appeal along with stay application before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 20-8-2014, Annexure A.1, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it was conceded by the assessee before the authorities below that the invoices were issued without even supplying any goods. It was also recorded that the Settlement Commission did not admit the case of the appellant and also that Settlement C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed by the High Court, but I find that the stay is an interim stay on condition of 50% deposit and bank guarantee for the remaining amount which obviously means that what has been stayed is the consequential recoveries in terms of that order. As stated earlier, the Settlement Commission itself did not consider that the appellants would be covered by their order in case Talbros. As such, the contention of the appellants in this regard is not sustainable. The other contention of the appellants is that the penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed as there were no goods involved. It is seen that the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises (supra) has discussed this very issue and has come to a finding that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
