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

....ral Excise<br>MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ively submits that Act of none of the appellant 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&#39;ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bt that the penalty was imposed under Rule 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4.1 In 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 pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....only if he is involved in various activities of handling of goods, which are liable for confiscation. In the present 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 th....