2016 (2) TMI 587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority though the first appellate authority has reduced the penalties on both the appellants. The penalties are imposed under the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, on the ground that the appellants herein have issued invoices for the scrap purchased from manufacturing industries and passed on the Cenvat credit of duty but factually they have only delivered the market scrap to the recipients. 4. Learned Counsel after taking me through the records would emphasise on the fact that the main appellant had issued invoices and filed weigh bridge slips along with tax invoices. He would submit that out of entire transactions only n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra 12.1 has recorded the following :- "It is also on record that Super Craft have reversed the Cenvat Credit availed by them in the transactions involved in this case. In view of this, I agree with the findings of the adjudicating authority holding both the appellants responsible for passing ineligible benefits and therefore liable for penalty under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules. However, I find that the adjudicating authority has imposed maximum penalty provided under Rule 26(2) of C.E. Rules on both the appellants without recordings any findings for imposing maximum penalty. I find that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants are a repeated offender, in which case imposition of maximum penalty was justifie....