TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Rules, as for confiscation of the goods under Rule 25 (1) (a), the intention to evade the payment of duty is not required to be proved – Decided against the Assessee. Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 – Held that:- For imposition of penalty under this rule, there must be evidence on record indicating that the appellant had received those goods knowing very well that the same are liable for confiscation or in other words, the appellant were aware that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading 94.04 and not eligible for exemption but still dealt with those non-duty paid goods – There is no evidence in this regard – Penalty under Rule 26 is not sustainable – Decided in favor of Assessee. - A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stock of Polyfil quilts found with the appellant would also be liable for confiscation. On this basis, after issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 14/1/10 confirmed the demands of the above-mentioned duty against M/s Sea Rose Exim (P) Ltd. and M/s Anmol Knitters (P) Ltd. alongwith interest and beside this, also ordered confiscation of 104 quilts valued at Rs. 1,63,520/- seized from the premises of M/s Oswal Woollen Mills (appellant) with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. Beside this, penalty of Rs. 32,500/- was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 26. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate duty, in my view, the provisions of Central Excise Rules had been contravened in respect of the same and, hence, the goods would be liable for confiscation under Rule 25 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Rules, as for confiscation of the goods under Rule 25 (1) (a), the intention to evade the payment of duty is not required to be proved. I, therefore, uphold the confiscation of the goods, in question. However, as regards penalty on the appellant under Rule 26, for this purpose there must be evidence on record indicating that the appellant had received those goods knowing very well that the same are liable for confiscation or in other words, the appellant were aware that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading 94.04 and not eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
