TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a None appeared for Shri Surendra Bhuraria and Lalit Kumar For the Respondent : Shri G.R. Singh, D.R ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya 1. The appellants namely, i. Shri Surinder Mohan Gambhir ii. Shri Abhay Kumar Jain iii. Shri Alok Jain iv. Shri Rajeev Jain v. Shri Narendra Gupta vi. Shri Surendra Bhuraria vii. Shri lalit Kumar Sethi are in appeal against Order in Original 06/2010 dated 12/04/2010 whereunder Inter alia penalties have been imposed on the appellants. 2. The brief facts are that: i. Certain persons namely, M/s Sulabh Impex Corporation, M/s Ganpati Trading Link and M/s S.R.D. Exim. Pvt. Ltd, who are registered dealers, were issuing Cenvatable invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscate under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand whichever is greater. 4.1 The Ld. Advocates for the appellants plead that in respect of their offence, there were no excisable goods in existence; therefore, provisions of the then Rule 26 for imposing penalty on them are not applicable. In this regard, they have cited in support Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ramesh Kumar Rajesh Kuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on concerned is liable to penalty under Rule 26 as it existed prior to 1st March, 2017. 4.5. The activities conducted by the appellants which have been penalized under old rule 26 (as it existed prior to 1st March, 2007) pertained to the period prior to 1st March, 2007 i.e. period of the contraventions/offences is during 2003 to 2005. As the facts stand, there are no physical excisable goods concerning the appellants. The appellants have dealt with directly or indirectly only with the issual of fake invoices on which wrong Cenvat credit was taken by the manufacturers, who have also been issued the notice. During the hearing it has been mentioned that said wrong Cenvat credit taken by the respective manufacturers has been paid back to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch, 2007, specifically, brings within its fold a person issuing an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice or any other documents 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 thereunder like claiming of Cenvat credit or refund is made to be liable to penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. It is, thus, clear that in order to bring within its fold, the case of a present nature. Rule 26 enacted in March, 2007 whereas in the year 1995 when the show cause notice in question was issued, the said rul....