TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of penalty, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held as under :- Now coming to the gravity of offence, I find that the appellant had clandestinely removed MS ingots, which are not consumable goods but industrial input. When he sells the goods to SSPL without any accountal and without payment of duty, he knows that SSPL has likewise, to manufacture of other excisable goods from it without accountal and remove them without payment of duty. Thus, in the very process of evasion of duty by him, he paves the way or rather ensures that subsequent excisable goods are also to be cleared clandestinely. He stands to be an effective abator with full knowledge to the offence committed by SSPL. Clandestine removal is the crude and inexcusable form of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods for manufacturing of excisable goods without accounting and removing them clandestinely. He reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. 6. On perusal of the records it is seen that the penalty imposed on the appellants is under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. While imposing such penalty the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has held that the current appellant had supplied non-duty paid MS ingots to their purchaser and hence they are equally responsible in adopting such type of malpractices. The provisions of Rule 26, imposing penalty for certain offences has to be read. I may read the Rule 26 :- Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice. The said separate show cause notice has been settled by the appellants before the Settlement Commission. Further, provisions of Rule 26(2) would not applicable in this case, as the appellants had not issued any invoice or document, or an act in order to be penalized under the said provisions. I find that for imposition of penalty under Rule 26, it has to be first brought on record that the appellant has done one or all the activities which are mentioned in the said rule. 8. It is seen that the appellant in this case is a corporate entity. I find that the Larger of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes (India) Ltd., has held that these provisions can be invoked only against an individual and not against the corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
