COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD Vs. NAVNEET AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Limited is engaged in the manufacture of Copper Tubes and have availed cenvat credit of Rs. 23,26,834/ - against 10 invoices issued by M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited. On investigation it was found out that no goods were supplied by M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited and only invoices had been issued. Proceedings were initiated and original adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Navneet Agarwal, Director of M/s. Annapurna Impex Pvt. Limited, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. On an appeal filed by Shri Navneet Agarwal, impugned order has been passed wherein, penalty imposed Shri Navneet Agarwal has been set -aside on the ground that Shri Navneet Agarwal had issued only invoices and did not deal with the goods and therefore, penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not have been imposed on him. Further, learned Commissioner also took a view that for imposing penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the original adjudicating authority did not have jurisdiction.

(2.) LEARNED DR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that in the impugned order, learned Commissioner has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Steel Tubes Limited - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 506 (Tri. -LB) to take a view that penalty was not imposable under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as Shri Navneet Agarwal had not dealt with the goods. He submits that the very same issue had come up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and in the decision in the case of M/s. Vee Kay Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported as 2011 (266) E.L.T. 436 (P and H), the Honble High Court took a view that penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable even before introduction of Rule 26(2), which specifically provide for imposition of penalty in the cases where invoices are issued without delivery of goods specified therein.

(3.) NOBODY is present on behalf of the respondents. This is the third time when the matter has been listed and apparently, respondent is not interested in pursuing the case.