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>Dismissal of Appeals in Fraudulent Cenvat Credit Case Under Rule 26(2)</h1> <h3>Samir Transport Company and SB Roadlines Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-iii</h3> Samir Transport Company and SB Roadlines Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Ahmedabad-iii - TMI Issues:Appeal against order confirming fraudulent cenvat credit demand and imposing penalties under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2012.Analysis:The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an order confirming a fraudulent cenvat credit demand against a company and imposing penalties under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2012. The demand of alleged fraudulent cenvat credit of Rs 50,81,22,157/- was confirmed against the company based on the ground that invoices were issued without supplying the inputs. Penalties were imposed on the appellants for their involvement in facilitating the passing of wrong availment of cenvat credit. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that they were not involved in issuing cenvatable invoices or handling goods, and therefore, the penalties imposed were unjustifiable. The appellants claimed they did not prepare or issue any documents that aided in the fraudulent availment of cenvat credit. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellants provided blank LR books that were used to pass on fraudulent cenvat credit, justifying the penalty imposition.Upon considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) noted that the penalty was imposed on the appellants under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2012, in connection with the fraudulent passing of cenvat credit. It was undisputed that the appellants provided blank LRs to facilitate the passing of fraudulent cenvat credit. The judge emphasized that providing blank LRs constituted abatement in the passing of fraudulent cenvat credit, falling within the purview of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2012. The judge concluded that the appellants' actions clearly violated the rule, regardless of their involvement in handling goods. Consequently, the penalty was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in an open court on 31.10.2022.
TaxTMI 