2015 (12) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing a penalty of Rs. 50 Lacs on the ground that the respondent had in any way abetted the evasion of excise duty that was leviable on the firm of which he was the auditor and in whose favour he had issued a certificate with regard to the source of the amount that had been recovered during the said proceedings. Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan submits that in relation to the order passed by the Commissioner Central Excise vide order dated 23rd March, 2007 the trader had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its decision dated 12th August, 2011 had discussed this issue in Paragraph 5 of the order but had not extended any benefit of exonerating the respondent of his alleged abetment and liability so as to invoke the penalty cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made there under like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Rule 27. General penalty. - A breach of these rules shall, where no other penalty is provided herein or in the Act, be punishable with a penalty which may extend to five thousand rupees and with confiscation of the goods in respect of which the offence is committed." On the strength aforesaid, Sri Rajesh Singh Cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounced in the said order and it is for this reason that the respondent appears to have filed his separate appeal. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning given in both the orders including the impugned order and so far as the issuance of the certificate by the respondent was concerned, that was not during the transaction of transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing any excise-able good. The certificate appears to have been obtained at the time of the proceedings that were initiated for the purpose of imposition of penalty and taking action against the trader. This therefore could not be described as an act to attract penalty under Rule 26 and 27, even though this may give a separate cause of....