Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 691 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty - Applicability of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 against the transporter – Held that:- It is not coming out from the list of consignments transported by the appellant, whether in all the consignments Central Excise invoices were made available to the transporter - It has not been brought out anywhere during the investigation that the appellant had the knowledge that some of the consignments transported by them were cleared without payment of duty and were liable to confiscation – the consignments taken by the appellant were not included in the pocket diary recovered from the manufacturer - By submitting the list of consignments transported for the manufacturer voluntarily has actually helped the investigators in making out the case of clandestine removal against the manufacturer more strong. Relying upon Vijay Transport Co. Ltd vs. CCE, Daman [2008 (5) TMI 530 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ] and Commr. Of C.EX., Coimbatore vs. Al Matheswara Lorry Service [2004 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - From the statement of the appellant or any other document it has not been brought out by the department that appellant was aware of the clandestine nature of the goods transported - Penalty cannot be based on presumption or assumptions - There are no circumstantial evidence to indicate the involvement of the appellant in the clandestine removal of excisable goods by the manufacturer - no penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act, 2002 is imposable upon the appellant – Decided in favour of Assessee.
|