Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 289 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - Levy of penalty under Rule 25 on the appellant - Levy of penalty on the director of company under Rule 26 - of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- M/s. Rajvi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Surat clandestinely cleared and sold the goods to the main appellant without any documentation, is not doubted. This fact has not been denied by the main appellant. In this regard, it is relevant to glance through the provisions contained in Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - From the language of the above Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is apparent that the same is applicable to a producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer who contravenes any of the provisions of these rules when intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, the main appellant has not contravened any provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with intent to evade payment of duty. POY purchased by the main appellant were not the goods manufactured by the main appellant much less with any intent to evade payment of central excise duty. As the main appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods, therefore, it is held that penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed upon the main appellant for goods not manufactured by him and penalty imposed under Section 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is accordingly set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee. Penalty on director - Held that:- Shri Pankesh S. Patel, Director of the main appellant is representing the unit registered with the central excise department and was aware that the goods (POY) purchased by them were without any invoice and without payment of central excise duty. Being representative of a registered unit, he has to be aware of the central excise procedures and law. It cannot be said that he was not aware that the goods purchased by them were not liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - He has been rightly visited with penalty under the Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - penalty reduced to ₹ 50,000/- - Decided against the appellant.
|