Case Law Details
Vishal Jain Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules rightly imposed on the Chartered Accountant who issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties based on which fraudulent advance license were obtained.
Facts- The company M/s. Iqbal Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. have cleared the goods from their EOU clandestinely under the guise of removal of the goods against advance license without payment of duty. For the purpose of advance license, the appellant who is a Chartered Accountant had issued performance certificate to M/s. Thejavathu Chandrakala, M/s. Eastern Products, M/s. Devashree processors and M/s. Amba Expofab without verifying their credentials and on that basis the DGFT had issued advance license to the said parties which were subsequently, misutilized leading to evasion of Government revenue to the tune of rupees more than Rs. 10 Crores of excise duty therefore, the appellant was imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lacs under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Conclusion- We find that the appellant have admittedly issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties who, on the basis of the said certificates obtained the advance license and such advance licenses were used for evasion of huge excise duty on the clearance of goods clandestinely from the EOUs. Without the performance certificate, the fraudulent advance license could not have been issued and huge revenue loss could not have occurred to the government exchequer. Therefore, for the entire offence the appellant’s role is key role.
Held that the appellant has been rightly imposed with a penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to the extent of penalty of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed upon appellant under Rule 26. Therefore, the penalty is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
