2018 (7) TMI 150 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Penalty u/r 26 of CER – abetting the receipt of excisable goods against invalid documents and passing on irregular cenvat credit to their customers – Held that:- It is not in dispute that the goods covered by the invoices were received at Dankuni depot. Only some of the goods that were addressed to Taratala depot were received at Dankuni depot due to the transition of depot operation of the assessee – As per Rule 11(2) of the said Rules, It is clear that the invoice should bear the name of the consignee, which in the instant case has been recorded correctly and the same has not been disputed by the department.
–
Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Rules is imposable on a person if he (i) issues any invoice without delivery of goods, (ii) issues any document or abets in making such document on the basis of which the recipient of the document avails any ineligible benefit – In the instant case, the assessee had not issued invoices without delive
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f their Bangalore/Pune unit on stock transfer basis which were addressed to their Taratala Depot, but the goods were actually received in their Dankuni Unit. Show Cause Notice dated 23.03.2013 was issued proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 26 for abetting the receipt of excisable goods against invalid documents and passing on irregular cenvat credit to their customers. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty of ₹ 21,34,032/- under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order, set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Respondent assessee have filed cross-objection. 2. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the goods were consigned to their Taratala Depot, but were received at their Dankuni Depot which is in contravention to statutory provision and accordingly the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ty cannot be imposed. In support of his submission he relied upon the following decisions;- i) Amrit Food vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, U.P. [2005(190) ELT 433 (SC)] ii) Commr. Of C.Ex, Madurai vs. Fenner (India) Ltd. [2014(313) ELT 3(Mad.)] (iii) United Telecom Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, Hyderabad[2011(21)STR 234(Tri.Bang.)] (iv) M/s. Bank of Baroda vs. Commr. C.Ex, Jaipur-I [2014(3) TMI 653-Cestat, New Delhi] 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. On perusal of records, I find that it is not in dispute that the goods covered by the invoices were received at Dankuni depot. Only some of the goods that were addressed to Taratala depot were received at Dankuni depot due to the transition of depot operation of the assessee. 6. As per Rule 11(2) of the said Rules, which reads as follows: The invoice shall be serially numbered and shall contain the registration number, address of the concerned Central Excise Division name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =