2017 (3) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the description of materials mentioned in the CEVAT invoices issued by appellant and the materials received by M/s. Aster Pvt. Ltd., are different. The appellant by issuing CENVAT invoices containing wrong description and wrong classification of goods actually sold, had contravened the provisions of Section 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and thus rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rule, 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After due process of law, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1,92,568/- under Rule, 25 of CENVAT Credit Rule, 2002. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. B. Venugopal, submitted that no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule, 25. 4. I have heard the submissions made before me. The main contention put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that the goods have not been confiscated and therefore the penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule, 2002. The Ld. Counsel drew attention to Rule 25 & 26 and submitted that the penalty if any, can be imposed under Rule 26 only. That Rule 25 speaks about confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty pursuant to confiscation. That in the present case, since there has been no confiscation the penalty cannot be imposed. The relevant provision Rule 25 is reproduced as under: Rule 25. Confiscation and penalty. - (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manu....