ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them by affirming the order-in-original.
2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed for decision on merits.
3. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.
4. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are trading in the excisable goods. They purchased the goods from M/s Ram Kishore Chemical (P) Ltd., who at that time was neither manufacturer of those goods nor even a registered dealer. Therefore, they could not issue modvatable invoices to any third party under the law.
5. The plea of the appellants that the goods were purchased by them under the transit sale and as such the sale was to be treated to had been made by the manufacturer, in my view, has been rightly rejected by the authorities below. The manufacturer of the goods was, M/s National Peroxide Ltd. They from their factory premises cleared the goods in favour of M/s Ram Kishore Chemicals (P) Ltd., who at that lime was not a registered dealer even. There was no direct sale of the goods in favour of the appellants by the manufacturing company, named above. The transit sale was conducted in their favour by the unregistered dealer, named above. They could not be said to be a purchaser of the goods from the manufacturer under the law. Therefore, for having issued the modvatable documents to the third party, which they could not do legally, they have been rightly penalized under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 under this law. The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Eveready Indus. India Ltd., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 180 (T) and L & T Ltd, 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948, referred to in the letter by the respondents is not attracted to their case in view of the facts and circumstances, referred to above.
6. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.