TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Waiver of Penalties Granted for Abetting Cenvat Credit Without Inputs</h1> <h3>Shri SL. Agarwal and others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi</h3> The Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties to the appellants as they were found not liable under Rule 26 for abetting the availment of ... Abetment of availment of Cenvat credit without receiving the inputs – Waiver of Pre-deposit of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Held that:- The documents on which the credit was availed is on the bills of entries and were purchased on high sea sale basis - the appellants cannot be charged under Rule 26, if it is the case of the Revenue that the main assessee has received only the documents on which the credit was availed, then the provisions of Rule 26 (1) will not apply, and the provisions of Rule 26 (2) will also not apply as the appellants have not issued any document on which someone has availed the Cenvat credit - the appellant has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – stay granted. Issues Involved:Waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for abetment of availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs.Analysis:Issue 1: Waiver of Pre-Deposit of PenaltiesThe appellants filed applications seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalties were imposed due to their alleged involvement in abetting the availment of Cenvat credit without actually receiving the inputs. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the credit was availed based on bills of entries purchased on a high sea sale basis. The Revenue contended that the inputs never reached the factory premises of the company, and thus, ineligible credit was claimed. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants could not be charged under Rule 26 as they did not issue any document on which the credit was availed. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 26(1) and Rule 26(2) were deemed inapplicable in this case.Issue 2: Decision on Pre-Deposit of PenaltyAfter considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had made a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts involved. Consequently, the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount was allowed, and the recovery of the penalty was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. This decision was based on the finding that the appellants could not be held liable under the relevant rules for the alleged offense.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Single Member BenchGiven that the issue fell within the jurisdiction of the single member bench, the registry was directed to list the matter for disposal before the single member bench in due course. This direction ensured that the case would be appropriately handled within the applicable jurisdiction, maintaining procedural compliance and efficiency in the adjudication process.In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties to the appellants based on the specific circumstances and legal analysis of the case. The decision highlighted the importance of proper application of rules and regulations in determining liability and penalty imposition in matters related to Cenvat credit availment without receiving the actual inputs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
