CCE Vs. SHRI MAHESH HARLALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. RKA/650/SRT -I/2010, dt. 20.12.10 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Surat -I. Under OIO No. 70/ADJ/ADC -BA/DEM/2009 -10, dt. 20.01.2010, penalties of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and Rs. 5,000/ - were imposed upon the respondent under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively. Both these penalties were set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) under OIA dt. 20.12.2010. Department has filed this appeal. None appeared on behalf of the respondent, but Shri V.M. Doiphode (Advocate) on behalf of the respondent vide letter dt. 31.08.2013 submitted that penalties have been correctly set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) as penalty has already been imposed on M/s. Aakruti Tax Fab.

(2.) SHRI K.J. Kinariwala, (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is a specific admission by the respondent and other persons about the role played by the respondent to get the undue benefit of textile policy and encashment of undue benefit through rebate claims. He relied upon the following case laws to support that the penalties upon the firm and the partner can be levied simultaneously: - -

(3.) SO far as imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is concerned, it is now well settled that penalty under Rule 15(1) can be imposed upon the manufacturer who took credit wrongly. Since respondent is not the manufacturer, therefore no personal penalty can be imposed upon him under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In view of the above, Revenue's appeal is allowed to the extent penalty imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as per OIO. However, Revenue's appeal with respect to imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is rejected.