9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against order-in-original passed by the Commissioner whereby the learned Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,80,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules on the appellant. The penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant has received invoices from M/s. Ambe Vaishno Steels Pvt. Ltd. However, they have not received the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural person. It cannot be imposed on the artificial person. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Meenakshi Ferro Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III - 2016 (344) ELT 1085 (Tri.-Mumbai); (ii) Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nasik - 2008 (226) ELT 410 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iii) Homag India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore-II - 2017 (357) ELT 1194 (Tri.-Bang.). 3. Shri H.M. Dixit, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asing or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or (rupees two thousand) whichever is greater. (2) Any person, who issues - (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. Accordingly, penalty under sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 is not applicable. As regards sub-rule (2), the said sub-rule is applicable on the person who issues the invoice without supplying the inputs for fraudulent passing on the cenvat credit. Penalty under sub-rule (2) is imposable only on the person who issues the invoice. The appellant does not fall under the category of the person mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
