2010 (1) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....August, 2009 by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (CESTAT for short) directing the petitioners Mr. Ashokkumar and Mr. Daulatkumar to pre-deposit 25% of the penalty imposed on each of them, they being the directors of M/s. Harisons Steel Pvt. Ltd. Submissions: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in short, submits that imposition of personal penalty on the director is not permissible under Rule 13(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (Cenvat Rules for short) as this rule contemplates penalty only on the person availing credit. In the case in hand, person, who has availed Cenvat credit, is a private limited company and not the directors of the company. The petitioners are the directors, who did ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;        (Emphasis supplied.) 7. The aforesaid rule opens with the wording if any person, takes CENVAT credit ...... These words are indicative of the fact that the penalty is imposable on the person who takes Cenvat credit. In other words, the person who has availed CENVAT credit is the only person liable to be visited with the penalty. None of the petitioners has availed CENVAT credit. It is availed by the Company alone; where the petitioners are directors. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 13(1) of the Cenvat Rules is imposable only on the person who has availed Cenvat credit i.e. on the Company, who is a manufacturer. The petitioners cannot be said to be manufacturer availing Cenvat credit. T....