TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Amex Alloys Pvt Ltd during 30-08-05 to 05-01-06 involving total duty amount of Rs.1,61,829/-. The third appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods who took credit on the basis of these invoices. 2. Based on investigation, Revenue made out a case that the two second stage dealers had procured non-duty paid MS scrap from open market and supplied it under invoices which showed payment of duty on materials which were used by buyers who were not interested in taking Cenvat credit. Thus, the case made out is actually one of fraudulent match of duty paying document and non-duty paid materials against the two second stage dealers. Against the manufacturer, the case made out is that they had attempted to evade payment of excise duty by taking fraudulent Cenvat credit taken on the basis of such fraudulent invoices. 3. Show Cause Notices were issued proposingimposition of penalty on the two dealers under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2004. The notice also proposed demand of duty with interest from Amex Alloys Pvt Ltd consequent to denial of credit on the fraudulent documents. On adjudication an amount of Rs.2,44,302/is imposed as penalty on M/s Amman Steels under Rule 25 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeal) has held that the duty paid goods sent to the persons who actually bought the duty paid goods without issue of invoices were liable to confiscation and therefore he is imposing penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. His argument is that duty paid goods sent to other parties could not have been held to be liable to confiscation. 8. The Ld. Advocate relies on the following decisions to argue his case that penalty could not have been imposed on him under Rule 25 as it stood at the time when the incident happened: (i) CCE Vs. Ashish Gupta-2009 (240) ELT 390 (Tri) (ii) CCE Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd.-2010 (261) ELT 1059 (Tri-Mum) (iii) CCE Vs. Anshul Steel Scrap Corpn.-2011 (264) ELT 535 (Tri-Del). 9. Opposing the prayer, the Ld. A.R. for Revenue submits that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of V. K. Enterprises Vs. CCE 2011 (273) ELT 513 (Tri-Del) has held that penalty could be imposed on a dealer under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as it stood at the relevant time. 10. The Third Appellant in this case is AAPL who submits that they were bonafide purchasers of scrap and they had taken all rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Inspector of Central Excise or the Superintendent of Central Excise before the cigarettes are removed from the factory. Provided that a manufacturer of yarns or fabrics falling under Chapter 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58 or 60 or readymade garments falling under Chapter 61 or 62 of First Schedule to the Tariff Act may remove the said goods under a proforma invoice signed by him or his authorised agent. The provisions of sub-rules (2) to (5) shall apply to the proforma invoice except that the said invoice shall not contain the details of the duty payable. The manufacturer shall, within five working days from the issuance of the proforma invoice prepare the invoice in terms of this rule after making adjustments in respect of the goods rejected and returned by the buyer. The proforma invoice and the invoice issued in terms of this sub-rule shall have cross reference to each other by way of their serial numbers Provided further that the said period of five working days, as referred to in the first proviso, may be extended upto a period not exceeding twenty-one days, inclusive of the said period of five working days, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, on receipt of a request from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, - (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him; or (c) engages in the manufacture, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty,then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or [ten thousand rupees], whichever is greater. (2) An order under sub-rule (1) shall be issued by the Central Excise Officer, following the principles of natural justice. (Relevant portions are hi....