TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri R.K. Hasija and Shri Shivang Puri, Advocates for Appellant No. 1 Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, Advocate for Appellant No. 2, 3 & 11 Shri Sumeet Jain, Advocate for Appellant No. 9 Shri Aman Garg, Advocate for Appellant No. 10 Shri Rajeev Gupta, Shri Pawan Kumar and Shri Narinder Singh, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER The present set of appeals has been filed by various appellants challenging the impugned order No.09/LDH/2011 dated 31.03.2011 and claimed to have been communicated on 09.05.2011. On initiating an investigation into M/s Cannon Industries Private Limited; on searching various premises and on recording statements of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Counsels also submit that whereas penalty for issuing only invoice without supply of goods is made punishable by insertion of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 w.e.f. 01.03.2017, the Department chose to impose the penalty retrospectively i.e. for the period before 01.03.2017. They further submit that the appellants have proved their bona fide by producing the documents showing sale of goods and their transport thereof. Penalty cannot be imposed on suppliers for any fraudulent activity on the part of the receiver; moreover, a company or a firm cannot be penalized under Rule 26. They rely on the following cases: • CCE Vs Mini Steel Traders - 2014 (309) ELT 404 (P&H). • Vee Kay Enterprises - 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion in Para 4.86 that the appellants have only issued invoices without transporting the goods. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order; he takes us through various provisions of SVLDR Scheme and submits that filing of a declaration is mandatory; CBIC clarified in the FAQs released after the Scheme was declared that the co-noticees can avail the Scheme by filing a declaration. In cases where the appellants have not filed any declaration contemplated under Section 125 of the Finance Act, 2019, the benefit of the Scheme cannot be claimed. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, he submits that a watertight case has been made against the appellants after conducting verification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora - 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj.) and 2014 (309) ELT A131 (SC). • Ajay Kumar G. Baheti - 2017 (348) ELT 115 (Tri. Mumbai). • CC Vs Navneet Agarwal - 2012 (276) ELT 515 (Tri. Ahmd.) • Kay Iron Works (Jorian) Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (359) ELT 110 (P&H). • Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. - 2009 (236) ELT 124 (Tri. Del.) and 2009 (247) ELT 27 (P&H). • Siemens Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Morgan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.), Mr. Sunil Chellani - 2023 (5) TMI 377- CESTAT-Mumbai dated 06.03.2023. • Dinesh Kanoria - 2022 (12) TMI 1408 - CESTAT Mumbai dated 20.12.2022. • Shakil Zakaria Memon - 2023 (11) TMI 6 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. • Shri V.K. Aggarwal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt is quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019; or (d) a voluntary disclosure. 9. We find that the relief available under the Scheme is provided under Section 124 which reads as follows: 124. Relief available under Scheme. - (1) Subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), the relief available to a declarant under this Scheme shall be calculated as follows: - (a) where the tax dues are relatable to a show cause notice or one or more appeals arising out of such notice which is pending as on the 30th day of June, 2019, and if the amount of duty is, - (i) rupees fifty lakhs or less, then, seventy per cent. of the tax dues; (ii) more than rupees fifty lakhs, then, fifty per ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....party has already been discharged and obtained Form-4, in that circumstance, we waive the penalty imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any."The Conclusion by the Tribunal in other cases as cited by the appellants was also similar. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that in the case of M/s Reliance Industries and M/s Jalan Jee Polytex Limited has given findings contrary to the facts recorded therein in the order itself. Commissioner observes that in the above said cases, goods have been found entered on the Punjab ICC Check Post, but M/s CIPL neither had any manufacturing facility as discussed above nor had they got manufactured any finished goods out of these inputs from outside on job-wo....