Case Law Details
Rajesh Kumar Narula Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the fact that the period involved in the present case is 2004-05. The offence of issuing bogus LR can at the most fall under the provision of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the said provision has come into effect from 01.04.2007 as per the notification no. 08/2007 dated 01.03.2007 therefore, penalty for the offence like issuance of bogus LR shall not attract penalty at the relevant time.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against Order-In-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26(2) was upheld in connection with facilitating fraudulent availment of cenvat credit by M/s. RHJ Extrusion by issuing bogus LRs whereas, goods have not been transported under that LR.
02. Shri V.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that in the present case the period involved is 2004-05 and at that relevant time there was no provision for penalty under Rule 26(2) which was inserted only by notification no.08/2007 dated 01.03.2007 (w.e.f. 01.04.2007) therefore, merely for issuance of bogus LR will not attract penalty under Rule 26(1) at the most it will fall under Rule 26(2) which was not in existence at the relevant time. On identical issue in the appellant’s own case this tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10839/2019 dated 25.04.2019 set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
