9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nine Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five only) and order for recovery under rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as discussed supra. I appropriate the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only. already deposited vide PLA Entry No. 14 and 18 dated 04.02.04 and 29.03.04 respectively, towards the said confirmed amount; ii. I confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,018/- (Rupees One Thousand and eighteen only) & Rs. 7,162/- (Rs. Seven Thousand one hundred sixty-two only), involved on the finished goods and raw materials found short and order for recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 1944 as discussed supra. As these amounts have already been deposited, I appropriate these towards the said confirmed demand. iii. I order for recovery of interest at the applicable rates on the amount of the inadmissible CENVAT credit taken by the party and Central Excise duty demands, as confirmed at the para (1) and (ii) above, under rule 12 of the said CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as discussed supra; iv. I impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding is only to imposition of penalties upon them in terms of Rule 26 (2) as also under Rule 25. The said Rules were not into existence during the relevant period and as such the penalties would not be imposable upon them in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Vee Kay Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported at 2011 (266) ELT 436 (P & H) as also in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chadigarh-I Vs M/s Mini Steel Traders reported at 2014 (309) ELT 404 (P & H). 4. Learned A.R. appearing for revenue agrees with the preposition of the learned Advocate to remand the matters. 5. On going through the impugned order, we note that the though the Commissioner fixed various dates of personal hearing, under intimation to the appellants but as the review petition was pending before the Hon'ble High Court the appellants made a request to keep the proceedings in abeyance. The said request was not accepted by the adjudicating authority on the ground that there is no stay order staying the operation of earlier order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and as such proceeded to decide the matter, without further providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, manufacturer, registered person of a or a registered dealer, warehouse or a registered dealer,- (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notification issued under these rules, or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him, or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act, or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or [rupees two thousand]. whichever is greater. (2) An order under sub-rule (1) shall be issued by the Central Excise Officer, following the principles of natural j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AML liable to penal action under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Imposition of personal penalty- 3.28. Further, on the issue of the personal penalty, it may be seen that the showcause notice proposes imposition of penalty upon the co-noticees, under Rule 26 on the ground that they had knowingly abetted in availing ineligible input credit to the AML without supplying inputs physically. It has been found that these co-noticee abetted in availing the inadmissible CENVAT Credit by the AML. I thus hold these co- noticees were liable for personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. I find that specific roles of the key persons involved in the case have been separately discussed in the notice and I accept the same. Accordingly I am inclined to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, as proposed in the notice, as follows. It is also pertinent to mention here the fact that the provisions of erstwhile Central Excise Rules as made applicable for the present proceeding have been validated vide section 38 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 4.3 Rule 26(2) was introduced by Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order at para 3.26, reproduced by us at para 4.2. 4.7 There is not even iota of allegation or evidence to show that appellants were concern with handling, removing of any goods which were liable for confiscation. On the contrary, the case against the appellants is that there were paying duties, credit of which was being taken by M/s Accurate Meters Ltd. 4.8 In the case of M/s Surya Ispat Udyog 2017 (358) ELT 476 (Tri.-Chan.) has held as follows:- "4. During the intervening period, there was no provision to impose the penalty on the respondent under Rule 25/26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As it is an admitted position that respondent has never dealt with the goods. In that circumstances, the ld. Commissioner (A) has rightly observed as under :- "I find that since no manufacturing activity has taken place in the instant case and no excisable goods, liable for confiscation, have been manufactured or produced, provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not attracted. Further, I agree with the appellants' submission that penalty provision for facilitating others in taking credit or iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
