TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l goods valued at about Rs. 59,00,000/- involving duty of Rs.7,92,702/- without actually supplying any goods and only with the purpose of enabling M/s. Polymermann Asia Pvt. Ltd. to avail the Cenvat Credit. On the basis of these invoices, M/s. Polymermann Asia Pvt. Ltd. took Cenvat Credit of Rs. 7,92,702/-. The evidence in support of this allegation against the appellant is:- (a) Admitted fact that the type of capital goods which are claimed to have been sold by the appellant to M/s. Polymermann, are not manufactured by them; (b) Statement of their Directors Sh. S.N.Godia and Sh. Dilip Mehta wherein they admitted that the invoices issued by them to M/s. Polymermann Asia Pvt. Ltd. are fake invoices without supply any goods and that the pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd. under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Erstwhile Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944). (iii) Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Sh. Dilip Mehta under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Earlier Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944). (iv) Penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on Sh. S.N.Giodia under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Earlier Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944). 1.4 On appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) the above order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside in toto vide order-in-appeal dt.15.09.10. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal which were disposed of by Tribunal vide Final Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be imposed on Sh. S.N.Godia under Rule 26 as he had not dealt with any excisable goods liable for confiscation and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Sh. Rakesh Puri, learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that when the appellant company had issued invoices showing clearance on goods on payment of duty, they had collected the amount including duty from the customer, and this amount would be payable by them to the Government which has not been paid, that this amount would therefore, be recoverable under section 11D, that in view of this, the demand of Rs.7,92,702/- has been correctly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 11D, that as re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcept for 3% commission, the appellant have not received any thing, there is no question of the appellant having received any amount towards duty which was not paid by them to the Government. Just because the invoices were issued by the appellant to M/s. Polymermann Asia Pvt. Ltd. showing sales of duty paid capital goods, it cannot be presumed that they had received the payment against those invoices when the evidence on record shows otherwise. In view of this so far as the demand under section 11D is concerned, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. 8. However, so far as the imposition of penalty for issue a fake invoices on both the appellant concerned, I find that during the period of dispute, Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) prov....