Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 570 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTPenalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Copper Tubes - Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent of confirmation of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is correct and proper when the appellants had not dealt with the goods physically in any manner and when there was no proposal for confiscation of the goods in the show cause notice and when no goods are held liable for confiscation? Held that:- It is seen from Rule 26(1), that the liability to penalty is fastened upon a person (i) who acquires possession of any excisable goods, (ii) who is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing; or (iii) who in any other manner deals with the goods. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that Rule 26 can be invoked only when a person has dealt with the goods physically and that since there is no allegation in the notices that the appellants physically dealt with the goods, no penalty can be imposed - this contention does not hold water in the light of the fact that Rule 26 uses the expression “in any other manner deals with any excisable goods”. The words “deals with’’ need not necessarily mean the physical dealing with the goods - If providing blank challans/invoices to a company to enable them to remove the manufactured goods clandestinely, will not fall under the category “in any manner dealing with the goods”, we do not know what these words “deals with’’ would mean. Therefore, the contention based upon Rule 26 does not hold water. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no proposal for confiscation and that therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Limited, v. CCE, Indore [2006 (10) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI [LB]] would squarely apply - Held that:- The Tribunal rightly distinguished the said decision on the ground that the Larger Bench did not focus on the expressions “in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling and purchasing or in any manner deals with any excisable goods”. The Larger Bench focused attention in Steel Tubes of India, only on the words “any person, who acquires possession”. Therefore, the decision was distinguishable and the CESTAT rightly did so. To ward off the penalty, the appellants should have come out clean. No logical explanation is offered as to why and how they parted with blank challans/invoices. Therefore, the question of law has to be answered against the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of, answering the question of law against the appellants, but reducing the penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount ordered by CESTAT and which amount is stated to have been already paid - appeal allowed in part.
|