TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant s firm is 100% EOU and sought clearance of their finished goods in DTA with effect from April 2005. Thereafter the appellants started clearing their goods in DTA following the procedure of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by paying duty by 5th of following month under which the duty is payable. They also filed returns regularly with the Department. The appellants cleared their goods under the duty paid invoice but the only allegation against them that they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Returns also, the Revenue has not pointed out the mistake to them. Moreover, all the invoices against which the goods were cleared, the duty of central excise was shown as payable. In the absence of any mens rea, no penalty is leviable on the appellants. He further submits that in this case, no specific provision of Rule 25 has been prescribed in the show cause notice for imposing penalty on the appellants firm, hence no penalty can be levied on the appellant. To support the contention, he placed reliance on Amrit Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise, UP. - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and J.K Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 501 (Ori.). He further submitted that as per Section 11A, sub-section 2(B) of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of clearance as per Rule 17 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. When it is not alleged that there is any intention of the appellants to evade payment of duty, in that event, the allegation of mens rea cannot be alleged against the appellants. In that event and in the absence of any mens rea, penalty under Rule 25 is not imposable on the appellants as held by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 349 (P H). The case law, cited by the learned Advocate are not relevant in the event of above findings. In view of the above findings, I do not find that the goods are liable for confiscation. Hence, penalty under Rule 26 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
