2026 (4) TMI 1819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n imposed on them under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants have supplied goods viz., Angles, Shafts, Towers and Steel Pre-Fabricated Structures, etc., to one M/s. Sprint Communication Private Limited on ex-factory basis against invoices. The appellants received payments for the same through banking channels. 2.1. The case against M/s. Sprint Communication Pvt. Ltd. was booked for allegedly engaging in fraudulent transfer and distribution of CENVAT Credit. Proceedings were also initiated against the appellant-company and its Director alleging that they had abetted in such fraudulent distribution of CENVAT Credit by M/s. Sprint Communication Pvt. Ltd. On these allegations, pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e exfactory basis; in such circumstances, the diversion of the goods by M/s. Sprint Communication Pvt. Ltd without bringing the goods to their factory cannot be attributed to the appellants. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that penalty under Rule 26(2) of the said Rules cannot be imposed on the appellants. 3.1. He also submits that the main noticee i.e., M/s. Sprint Communication Pvt. Ltd. has cleared their case by opting for SVLDRS and refers to the Final Order No. 75929 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025 passed by this Bench in this regard. Accordingly, he submits that since the case of the main noticee has been resolved through SVLDRS, penalty on the present appellants are not maintainable. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.....