2014 (9) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;          The appellant had issued invoices for certain capital goods on the basis of which M/s Talbros Automotive Components Ltd. took credit of Rs. 1,62,400/-. The invoices were allegedly issued without ever supplying any goods. M/s Talbros Automotive Components (Talbros for short) had allegedly received such invoices (without goods) issued by several other suppliers also. The DGCEI made a case and issued Show Cause Notices to M/s Talbros as well as the appellants alongwith other such suppliers. M/s. Talbros and the appellants approached the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission did not find the appellants' case to be falling within the ambit of Settlement Commission and therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ules, 1944 is not imposable when there are no goods involved.          (3) The penalty imposed is the maximum possible and even under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1994, an option to pay penalty equal to 25% of the duty involved is available. 4. Ld. A.R. on the other hand, cited the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises Vs. CCE - 2011 (266) ELT 436 (P&H) which in effect held that when such a person purports to sell goods with the invoices, it cannot be said that there are no goods involved or that he was not concerned in selling of goods. The said judgement has been followed by CESTAT in the case of CCE Vs. Navneet Agarwal - 2012 (276) ELT 515 (Tri.-Ahm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ho never approached the Settlement Commission. The ld. Advocate stated that the order in case of K.L. International Ltd. has been stayed by the High Court, but I find that the stay is an interim stay on condition of 50% deposit and bank guarantee for the remaining amount which obviously means that what has been stayed is the consequential recoveries in terms of that order. As stated earlier, the Settlement Commission itself did not consider that the appellants would be covered by their order in case Talbros. As such, the contention of the appellants in this regard is not sustainable. The other contention of the appellants is that the penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed as there were no goods involved. It is seen that the Hon'ble Punjab ....