TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese appeals have been filed with respect to O.I.A No. SRP/91-98/VAPI/2012-2013. 2. When these appeals were called out for hearing none appeared on behalf of appellant Tarvinder Singh Dhody. Shri A.M. Chitnis (Consultant) appeared on behalf of all the other four appellants. Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that in these proceedings M/s. Nitin Alloys Global Ltd., too....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi decision in the case of Ashok Verma vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV [2013(293) E.L.T. 410 (Tri. Del.)] to argue that this was also held in this case law that Director of a Company cannot be visited with a penalty for taking improper credit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is imposition of penalties upon on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that he intentionally allowed availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices issued by three registered dealers in a fraudulent manner. As such there is no allegation against the appellant that he had dealt with any excisable goods which he knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation. Under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, as the same stood during the period of disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit. Thus, as such this rule also cannot be applied to those who have taken ineligible Cenvat credit. The only provision for imposing penalty for taking Cenvat credit wrongly is Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. under which the penalty can be imposed on the person who takes the Cenvat credit wrongly. Since in this case, Cenvat credit has been availed by M/s. Asha Telecom Pvt. Ltd., not by....