TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edge that, the legal entity viz., V.K. Udyog Ltd., was not carrying on any manufacturing activity. In fact, V.K. Udyog Ltd. is under the control and management of the three petitioners before me. These three petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the activities of V.K. Udyog Ltd. Knowing the activities of V.K. Udyog Ltd. they made a false representation to the authorities to avail of CENVAT credit. The are liable for such fraudulent activities - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P. No. 583 of 2018, W.P. No. 584 of 2018 And W.P. No. 585 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - Justice Debangsu Basak For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Chowdhury with Mr. T.K. Mitra, Advs. For the Respondents : Mr. Somnath Ganguly with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings are bad in law. Consequently the imposition of penalty is bad in law. The respondents are represented. As noted, the order in original received consideration of the Court in M/s. V.K. Udyog Ltd. (supra). There, it was found that the company, of which one of the petitioners is the Managing Director, the other is a Director and the third is the Manager, obtained benefits under a particular scheme declaring itself to be a manufacturer. In the proceedings emanating out of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it was found that, such company was at best a trader, not a manufacturer. It would not have obtained the benefits under such scheme. The declaration of the company that it was a manufacturer, was found to be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the three petitioners before the Court as Managing Director, Director and Manager of M/s. V.K. Udyog Ltd. were involved in the fraudulent transactions. Therefore, the order in original proceeds to impose the penalty as sought to be done under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners before me are seeking to contend that, although they made a fraudulent representation before the authority in obtaining SENVAT credit, then when the authority found the actual fact that, the petitioners did not indulge in any manufacturing activity, there is no reason for imposition of penalty under the Act of 1944. Such a contention is downright dishonest. The petitioners were well aware about the benefits of CENVAT credit under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
