2012 (10) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder the said invoices to M/s. Vivek Steel and only invoices were issued showing supply of goods so that Cenvat credit of the excise duty shown to be paid could be taken by M/s. Vivek Steel. 2. The counsel for the appellant submits that Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. Vivek Steels Ltd. for recovery of credit fraudulently taken. The demand was adjudicated confirming duty demand and also imposing penalty. According to him the loss caused to revenue has been already recovered from M/s. Vivek Steel Ltd. 3. The present appeal is by the Director of M/s. Tarush Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. which is Private Limited Company that supplied the invoices without goods. A penalty has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 26(2) of Central Exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty could not have been imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 as it stood at the relevant time because that rule was for imposing penalty on any person selling goods. Therefore he submits that penalty imposed is on the appellant is not maintainable. 7. Opposing the prior the ld. AR for Revenue submits that the issue whether any penalty could be imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as it stood prior to 1-3-2007, in the type of circumstances under consideration, has been examined by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises v. CCE - 2011 (266) E.L.T. 436 (P & H). He relies on Para 10 of said order which reads as under :- “In spite of non-applicability of Rule 26(2), penalty could be levied....