2023 (8) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. C L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Parth Mullick, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. K. Singh, Superintended (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the cases are that in respect of all the appellants a penalty under Rule 26 was imposed in connection with the case against M/s Nitin Alloys Global Ltd. on which there is a charge that M/s. Nitin Alloys Global Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant are covered even under un-amended Rule 26. Therefore, on this ground also penalty is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: * Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs Elgi Equipments Ltd, 2001 (128) ELT 52(SC) * Final Order No A/10839/2019 dated 25.04.2019 of the Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Rajesh Kumar Narula vs CCE & ST, Vadodara * Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the present case the period involved is 2005-06 Rule 26(2)(ii) was inserted vide Notification No.8/2007-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2007 (effective from 01.04.2007), therefore, the provision of Rule 26(2)(ii) cannot be made applicable retrospectively for the period prior to 01.04.2007. For this reason alone the penalties imposed on the appellants are not sustainable. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sent case the entire case of the department is that there is no movement of goods but it is a paper transaction and the M/s Nitin Global Ltd, who has taken Cenvat credit, has not received the goods. When this is the case of the department as no goods is involved, consequently, none of the appellants are engaged in handling the goods which is liable for confiscation. 4.4 As regard the appellant, S....