2016 (8) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ices without accompaning the goods, in that circumstances, the receiver of goods are not entitled to take cenvat credit, therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant as well against the persons on whom the invoices were issued by the appellant. The matters were adjudicated. Demand of duty was confirmed by denying cevnat credit to the buyers alongwith interest and penalties were also imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise rules, 2002 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matters of buyers have been dealt separately. The appellant is before me against the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant. 3.  As issue is common in all the appeals, therefore all are taken up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Mini Enterprises (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court examined the issue and observed as under: 7.  This Court in Ashish Gupta and Vee Kay Enterprises's cases (supra) had held that Rule 26(2) of the Rules by virtue of which an assessee was held liable for penalty where invoices were issued without any movement of goods, was inserted by notification dated 1-3-2007 which was not applicable to alleged acts committed prior to the said date. Further, in view of the findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that Rule 25(1)(b) of the Rules was not attracted to the facts of the present case, the aforesaid judgment does not advance the case of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty with the following observations :- "7. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. As per the show cause notice, M/s. I.S. Steel & Agro Industries have not undertaken any manufacturing activity and therefore, the question of their supplying any goods does not arise. Apparently the said party was only a manufacturer on paper. Therefore, the transactions between the said manufacturer and the respondents-dealers, are only paper transactions without actual movement of goods. On these grounds, the original authority held that the concerned manufacturers of final products who have taken Cenvat credit based on invoices, are not eligible for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned duty paid goods, whether penalty is imposable on such person under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not?' The decision of the Hon'ble High Court also took note of the fact that the revenue has filed appeals where no penalty was imposed on persons who issued invoices without delivery of the goods prior to amendment of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After considering the above question of law, it has been held that where a person merely arranges Modvatable document to the manufacturer without actual delivery of goods, penalty could not be imposed under Rule 209A. Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 prior to amendment on 1-3-2007 is akin to Rule 209A. Therefore, the decision of the H....