9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel Ingots and availing Cenvat credit on the inputs. Show cause notice dated 22-7-2003 was issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise of the manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer availed irregular Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,03,160/- on the basis of the fake invoices issued by the respondent, sold through registered dealer M/s. V.K. Aggarwal & Sons. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of Rs. 1,03,360/- which was deposited by the manufacturer at the time of detection and a penalty of 25% of the duty was imposed on them. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each on the respondent and M/s. V.K. Aggarwal & Sons under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Mandi Govindgarh and, therefore, penalty can be imposed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Mandi Govindgarh. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that penalty cannot be imposed on the firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as held by this Tribunal. He further submits that Rule 26 cannot be invoked on any per son who issued invoices for availment of Cenvat credit. It is his contention that imposition of penalty in such a situation has been incorporated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by inserting Notification No. 8/2007 dated 1-3-2007. He further submits that this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Ashish Gupta reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.-Del.) held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. There is no reference in this Section to the place at which such seizure can be effected. As such the seizure can be effected at any place and the case adjudicated by the competent officer under whose jurisdiction the goods were seized." It transpires from the above paragraph that chief criterion to determine jurisdiction is the place where the offence is committed. In the present case, it is seen from the record that the offence was committed by M/s. Monga Brothers Limited, who had availed irregular credit on the basis of the fake invoices, within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana rightly adjudicated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
