2014 (5) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") upholding the levy of penalty upon the assessee. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The appellant was a registered dealer and engaged in trading of zinc ingots. It purchased goods from M/s Kiran Metal, Faridabad who was a registered manufacturer against invoice and made payment through banking channels. The appellant sold the goods with invoices to M/s Sonia Overseas, Panchkula. After investigation by the officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, it was opined that the appellant neither actually received nor supplied goods to others. The appellant only issued invoices and passed on the Cenvat credit without actual....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2002 w.e.f 1.3.2007, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises v. CCE (supra), in para 10 of the judgment has held that in such cases in spite of non applicability of Rule 26(2) for the period prior to 1/3/07, penalty can be imposed under rule 25(1) (d) and 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules as the person who purports to sell the goods cannot say that he is not the person concerned in selling of goods and merely issued invoice or that he did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. In this regard para 10 of the judgment is reproduced below:-           "10. In spite of non applicability of Rule 26(2) penalty could be levied as the appellant was c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....." 6. From the above, it emerges that the appellant was a registered dealer who was involved in issuing bogus invoice without selling any goods to M/s Sonia Overseas on the basis of which the said firm took the Cenvat Credit. It was in those circumstances that the penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed under Rule 25(1)(d) and 26(1) of the Rules. 7. Further, in Vee Kay Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2011(266) ELT 436, it was held by this Court as under:-              "10. Inspite of non applicability of rule 26(2), penalty could be levied as the appellant was concerned in selling or dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation inasmuch as the appellant....