TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial and on the basis of alleged fake and forged gate passes in respect of MS Scrap, certificates were issued fraudulently, facilitated with the modvat credit to M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd., Murbad. It is an allegation that the Bazar scrap supplied to M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. and the modvat credit was fraudulently passed on the basis of certificate issued on the basis of fake and forged gate passes of the appellant company. The penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944 was imposed. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. Shri Vinod Awtani, Ld. Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that the penalty under Rule 209A can only be imposed on the person who deals with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... very same case when all other co-noticee who are placed on the same ground were given waiver of penalties then the equity demands that the present appellant should also be exonerated from the penalties imposed under Rule 209A of the Rule. 4. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) M/s Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs 2989(39) E.L.T. 178(S.C) (ii) Benara Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513(S.C.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The issue to be decided by us in the facts of the case is that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of dealing with the goods and the confiscation thereof is not involved. Under Rule 209A penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant for the offence committed. We observe that in the new Central Excise Rules 2002, Rule 26 is pari materia to Rule 209A, when it was realized by the Government that offence of the similar nature of the present case are also occurring for extending the fraudulent benefit by way of fake documents, the legislators have conciously inserted Sub-rule (2) in Rule 26 to bring the present offence under the ambit of penal provision. Since the provision similar to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 was neither existing in Rule 26(1) nor in Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944, the provision of Sub-Rule (2) cannot be made applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal of Hindustan Steel Traders, Shri A.R. Agarwal, partner of M/ s. Tribhuvan Ispat, Shri S.R. Agarwal, also partner of M/s. Tribhuvan Ispat, Shri Surinderjit Kaur, proprietor of M/s. S.K. Industries, Shri K.K. Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Mukesh Iron & Sheet Traders and other traders. Therefore, the material on record is sufficient to hold that credit had been wrongly availed by M/s. SSIL who were, therefore, required to reverse the same. We, therefore, uphold the recovery of total modvat credit of Rs. 47, 10, 546.65 from M/s. SSIL. Penalty on M/s. SSIL in terms of Rule 173Q also requires to be upheld and we order accordingly. As regards penalties under Rule 209A on the directors of SSIL and the various traders, we find force in the plea put....