2020 (3) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information, a search was conducted at the premises of M/s Ujala Electricals Limited (in short UEL), Mandideep, Distt-Raisen (M.P.), M/s VKM Electricals Limited (in short VKM) and in the premises of Shri V. K. Madan, the Chief Advisor of all the above units. The appellant namely, shri Neeraj Thakur was one of the Directors of VKM having 6.42% of share capital and the remaining appellants are C&F agents who cleared the goods to UEL from different suppliers. During the course of investigation, it was found that UEL is availing cenvat credit on inputs without physically receiving the goods. Therefore,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lhi in the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg CEAC 1/2011 vs. Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 10.12.2015 wherein the High Court held that the department would have to show the actual involvement of the person sought to be penalised in the action of possessing, transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, etc. of the excisable goods to levy penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed. 4. On behalf of the other appellants, learned Counsel submits that penalty has been imposed on the basis of third party evidence i.e. the statement of transporter and none of the transporter was called for examination in chief and no cross examination was granted to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt and this Tribunal as discussed above, the penalty cannot be imposed for the period prior to 1.3.2007, the date on which sub-rule (2) was inserted in Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 vide Notification No. 8/2007-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2007 for issuing invoices without delivery of goods and also for abetting in issuing such invoices. I am, therefore, of the opinion that these aspects need to be relooked into by the ld. Adjudicating Authority in the facts and circumstances of the case." 8. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the legal issues raised by the appellant while imposing penalty on the appellants. 9. In the case of penalty imposed on Neeraj Thakur, I find that the penalty has been imposed bein....