2012 (3) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pta, A.R.   Per Mathew John:   The Appellants are a manufacturer of excisable goods and were taking credit of Excise duty paid on inputs as well as capital goods. During the period 27.12.1999 to 31.3.2000 they had taken Cenvat credit of Rs.7,82,702/- on the basis of invoice issued by M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd., Indore for supply of capital goods. The Appellant s factory is situated in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the Director and the authorised signatory of M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals) but they did not get any relief. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellants have filed this Appeal.   3. The main contention raised by the App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imposing any penalty for merely issuing invoices. At any rate, the offence of issuing the invoice was not committed by the Appellant but was committed by M/s MGM Tools Pvt. Ltd.   4. Secondly, the Rules 173Q and Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944, which were the possible rules which could have dealt with this situation, prescribes penalty on persons handling the goods. In the present c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lent credit shows mens rea on the part of the Appellant and for that reason penalty is imposable. The order is not specific as to how there is jurisdiction vested with Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore for imposing penalty for taking wrong Cenvat credit in Nasik or how the provisions of Rule 209A or Rule 26 is applicable to the situation.   6. Thus I do not find any merit in the argum....