TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proposing to deny CENVAT credit of Rs.2,83,51,618/- availed by the company during October 2006 to April 2007 on the following grounds:- (i) CENVAT credit of Rs.2,56,17,492/- availed on steel items like M.S. angles, channels, flats etc. on the ground that the same were used in the construction/fabrication of supporting structures of plant and machinery which were immovable structures embedded to earth. (ii) CENVAT credit of Rs.19,73,608/- availed on the basis of Central Excise invoices obtained from M/s Bhartiya Alloys & Steel Cast Pvt. Ltd., where it was alleged that the impugned goods were not physically received by the company in their factory. (iii) CENVAT credit of Rs.7,60,517/- availed on inputs which were al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... was approved by the NCLT. 2. Shri Ishan Bhatt, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that against the company there was a duty demand on the alleged wrong availment of Cenvat credit. However, neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order goods were proposed/ confirmed the confiscation thereof. Therefore the penalty on the director cannot be imposed. It is his submission that penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only when the goods which was dealt by the person is liable to confiscation. Since in the present case there is no confiscation of the goods, Rule 26 cannot be invoked. 2.1 He submits that on merit of the case against the company, the Cenvat credit was admissible in view of va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Ltd. v. CCE- 2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC) * Vandana Global Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Central Excise 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhat.) * Vs DSCL, Sugar, Rupapur District Harodi, U.P Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Lucknow 2019 (367) ELT 836 (All.) * Tamilnadu Newsprint & (Mad.) Commissioner of Central Excise 2021 (3) TMI 179 Papers Ltd Vs * Cements Ltd. 2019 (367) ELT 817 (Mad,) The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Madras * Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs CESTAT, Chennai 2016 (341) E.L.T. 102 (Mad.) * Commr. Of C.Ex., Visakhapatnam-II Vs Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. 2011 (270) E.L.T. 33 (Α.Ρ) * SLR Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex., Banglore-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raj Rayon Ltd is as under:- ORDER I. I order to recover the Cenvat Credit...... 4.1 From the above order at serial No. 4, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on the appellant. The reason for imposing penalty is given in para 23.21 of the impugned order which is reproduced below:- "In view of the above facts, I find that Shri Gouri Shankar Poddar Chairman/ Managing director of the assessee company was the responsible person for all the business and financial transactions of the Company and E same were being done & managed at his direction and under his knowledge. He was fully aware and had reason to believe that credit on such items when used in construction, fence walls, eraction of foundati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document, 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 under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.] [Inserted by Central Excise Rules, 2007 w.e.f. 1.3.2007]" 4.3 From the plain reading of the above rule 26, we find that the penalty under the said rule can be imposed either under sub- rule (1) or sub - rule (2). Su....