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>Director's penalty under Rule 26 set aside as no goods confiscated and CENVAT credit dispute involved interpretation</h1> <h3>Gouri Shankar Poddar Versus Commissioner of C.E & S.T. -Silvasa</h3> Gouri Shankar Poddar Versus Commissioner of C.E & S.T. -Silvasa - TMI Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT credit availed by the company.2. Imposition of personal penalty on the director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. Appeal against the order dated 26.04.2017.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT CreditThe company was issued a show cause notice proposing to deny CENVAT credit availed on steel items and inputs used in immovable structures outside the factory. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit and imposed a penalty on the Appellant. The company and the Appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the order.Issue 2: Imposition of Personal PenaltyThe Appellant argued that since there was no proposal for confiscation of goods in the show cause notice or the order, the penalty under Rule 26 could not be imposed. The Appellant also contended that the CENVAT credit was admissible based on various judgments, and therefore, the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed based on the confirmation of demand against the company, but since no goods were confiscated, Rule 26 could not be invoked. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the judgments cited by the Appellant supported the admissibility of CENVAT credit on similar materials, making the penalty unsustainable.Issue 3: Appeal Against the OrderThe Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the department failed to establish a case for imposing penalty under Rule 26 on the Appellant, as the goods were not confiscated, and the CENVAT credit issue was supported by relevant judgments. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the penalty was overturned.This judgment highlights the importance of establishing grounds for imposing penalties under specific rules and the relevance of legal precedents in determining the admissibility of credits. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of confiscation of goods and the applicability of previous judgments in supporting the Appellant's position regarding the CENVAT credit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
