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>Tribunal revokes penalty for bogus LRs in transport of copper, citing rule scope.</h1> <h3>M/s Rajesh Kumar Narula Versus C.C.E. & S.T. - Vadodara-II</h3> M/s Rajesh Kumar Narula Versus C.C.E. & S.T. - Vadodara-II - TMI Issues Involved:Appellant involved in issuance of bogus LRs for transport of copper, penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the appellant for issuing bogus LRs for the transport of copper, leading to fraudulent cenvat credit availed by the consignee. The issue centered around whether the appellant's actions constituted an offense under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant did not appear during the proceedings, while the Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.Upon considering the submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the period in question was before 01.03.2007, during which Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, stated that a penalty could be imposed on individuals involved in dealing with excisable goods liable for confiscation. However, it was observed that merely issuing bogus LRs did not fall within the scope of this offense as per the plain reading of Rule 26. The Tribunal highlighted that the rule was amended effective from 01.03.2007, and therefore, the penalty could not be imposed solely for the issuance of bogus LRs for the period before the amendment.In support of this interpretation, the Tribunal referenced judgments from the Hon'ble Punjab High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, namely the cases of Mini Steel Traders and Ramesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar & Co., respectively. These judgments clarified the scope of Rule 26 and supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was revoked. The Tribunal's decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court, bringing the case to a close.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
