2023 (2) TMI 1352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. G. Kirupanandan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent RAMESH NAIR By the impugned order, the appellant was imposed with the penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Shri G. B. Yadav, Learned Counsel Appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the penalty on the appellant was imposed in connection with fraudulent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at Commissioner Vs. Sunil S. Dangi- -2017 (349) ELT A34 (Guj.) 3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 there under 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." 4.1 From the above Rule 26, the penalty can be....