TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which remained against the petitioner. In exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no scope for entering into the calculation which has been arrived at by the respondent department and on the face of it, it is not in dispute that the demand raised by the authority against the petitioner having attained finality, petitioner should go strictly as per scheme. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(T) No.1869 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Adv. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar for the Union of India. Petitioner company who was engaged in the manufacture of non- alloy steel ingot, alongwith its Directors was served with a show-cause notice by the office of Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi as to why a total amount of ₹ 22,27,500/- comprising of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 21,83,822/-, Education Cess to the tune of ₹ 43,678/- be not recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) I confirm the recovery of interest on the confirmed amount mentioned at Sl.No.(i) and Sl.No.(ii) above under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) I impose penalty of ₹ 22,99,635/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh Ninety nine thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the said Act upon Noticee No.1; (v) I impose a penalty of ₹ 22,99,635/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) upon Noticee No.2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Director, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (vi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 22,99,635/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) upon Noticee No.3 Mr. Sunil Kumar Poddar, Ex-Director, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (vii) I impose penalty of ₹ 22,99,635/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) upon Noticee No.4 Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pilania, Ex-Director, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Act, 1944. Hence, there is no need to go into the demand of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty on the assessee on merit. 3. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, is not applicable to them as neither any goods is available for confiscation nor they have indulged in any activities specified in the said Rules. The ld. Counsel relied upon the various decisions. The ld. Adjudicating authority observed that the appellants were involved in the fraudulent activity of the assessee company for availing Cenvat Credit on fake invoices. On perusal of the records, I find that the assessee availed Cenvat Credit against 51 (fifty one) fake invoices issued by the said dealer. I find that the appellants are Directors of the assessee company and attempted to shift their responsibility on each other on various pretexts. Nobody has come out with clear facts of the case. The demand was raised in respect of the goods for evasion of duty where the appellants were involved. And therefore, the imposition of penalty is warranted. 4. However, I agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel that the quantum of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Designated Committee, Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme to accept the tax dues of ₹ 4,29,854/- as correct as declared by the petitioner in Form No.SVLDRS-1 dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-15). The entire grievance of the petitioner is reflected in the representation dated 27.02.2020 filed by the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-19 of the writ petition. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the specific case of the petitioner was that in its appeal and during hearing they had submitted that an amount of ₹ 12,50,000/- has already been deposited and the demand notice dated 14th August 2019 contained an amount of ₹ 7,86,135/- which has been deposited before issuance of the said demand and required to be appropriated. It was further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of ₹ 12,25,000/- and according to their understanding, they are liable to pay an amount equal to 40% of ₹ 10,74,635/- (₹ 22,99,635/- minus ₹ 12,25,000/-) and calculated it to be ₹ 4,29,854/-. This contention of the petitioner was subsequently rejected by the authority vide communication contained at Annexure-21 dated 23.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
