TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pot, Shalimar, Shibpur, Howrah-711 102 having Central Excise Registration No. AABCR2848HXD001 is a registered Dealer under the jurisdiction of Range-II, Howrah South-1 Division, Kolkata-II Commissionerate. They are engaged in supplying of "TMT Bar Cutting/MS Round Cutting" purchased from various manufacturers and passing on CENVAT Credit involved therein. 3. During investigation of the documents of M/s Rathi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., it has been noticed that the said supplier has been issuing Excise invoices describing the goods as "TMT Bar Cutting/MS Round cutting" whereas they have shown to have purchased "TMT Bars/MS Round" from various manufacturers. It was alleged that they were receiving "TMT Bar/MS Round" and after cutting the same were sold to different buyers mentioning it in invoices as "TMT Bar Cutting/MS Round Cutting" but the Central Excise Tariff Sub-Heading 72141090 of "TMT Bar" and "TMT Bar cutting" was deliberately mentioned/retained in the invoices issued by M/s Rathi Steel Industries Ltd. so as to camouflage and to pass on CENVAT Credit fraudulently. It was also alleged that by cutting 'TMT Bars' into pieces, M/s Rathi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of some vehicle owners have also been recorded wherein they have categorically denied their involvement in transportation to/from the premises of M/s Rathi Steels Industries Pvt. Ltd., Howrah. 5. Pursuant to the above, a Show Cause Notice No. 52/COMMR/CE/DGP/15-16 dated 13.01.2016 was issued inter alia proposing to impose penalty on the appellant herein under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Consequent upon such issuance of the said Show Cause Notice, the same was duly replied by the appellant herein vide letter dated 08.12.2016, whereupon, the entire allegation as is levelled against the present appellant was duly denied and disputed. 7. Thereafter, the Ld. adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2016 confirmed the imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- under Rule 26 ibid., as proposed in the Notice. 7.1. The above order was challenged by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who, by way of the impugned order dated 15.03.2018, has rejected the appeal. 7.2. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has inter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner failed to appreciate that when all the amounts of demand including interest and penalty have since been paid by the manufacturer M/s Shyam Sel and Power Ltd., the appellant being co-noticee is eligible to get immunity from penalty as well. 8.1. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant prayed for waiver of the penalty imposed on them under Rule 26 of the said Rules as being legally unsustainable. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue justified the imposition of penalty on the appellant vide the impugned order. He contended that the transaction in question was fictitious and a mere paper transaction, as the same was commercially non-viable, with the intention to avail irregular credit. In particular, he drew our attention to the statement recorded from the appellant, in the capacity of Director of M/s. Rathi Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., wherein he has inter alia stated that the area of their godown is 800 Sq. Ft. approx. situated at PTR Siding, Coal Depot, Shalimar, Howrah and no electric connection was there. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the present appeal. 10. Heard both sides and perused the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector of M/s. Rathi Steel Industries (P) Ltd., (Noticee No. 3) contended that the case is based on his statements dated 18.11.2014 & 19.11.2014 which were not voluntary in nature and relied upon a letter dated 21.11.2014 wherein he has stated that these statements were not voluntary in nature but he has not provided a copy of the said letter. The said statements have also not been retracted in any Court of Law. The Noticee No. 3 has contended that no elaboration and details of the transporters have been mentioned who have denied transporting the subject goods but I find that it has been clearly and specifically elaborated and detailed in Annexure Cl to the SCN. The said annexure has been prepared on the basis of the statements of the respective vehicle owners. Therefore, the contention of the Noticee No. 3 does not hold good and it has been brought forward as an afterthought. The Noticee No. 3, in his statement recorded on 19.11.2014, has admitted that there was no transportation of the subject goods and these were, only paper transactions. The admittance of the Noticee No. 3 has been corroborated by the statements of the vehicle owners who have also admitted to have not transpor....