Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 26 - HC - Central ExciseDemand - failure to pay duty - Held that:- since the Respondents have not disputed the liability to pay Duty, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to examine the correctness of the adjudication in that regard. Imposition of penalty - Rule 209A of the Rules - there was no evidence brought forth to link Shri N.Ramachandran, for the alleged violations - Held that:- Rule 209A of the Rules, has specifically required that any person, who deals with any Excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or ₹ 5,000/- whichever is greater, if he is in any way concerned in transporting, removing or depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner deals with such goods. Therefore, it is essential that there must be evidence brought on record linking the role of the individual to any of these offending acts in which event alone the penalty contemplated by Rule 209A of the Rules, can be imposed. Since there was no material to link Shri N.Ramachandran, with any such acts enumerated under Rule 209A of the Rules, the penalty imposed against him under Rule 209A of the Rules, is liable to be set at naught and that was the reason why the Tribunal has rightly set aside that portion of the Order in Original passed by the adjudicating Authority. Imposition of penalty - Rule 173Q of the Rules - Tribunal has reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- - Held that:- the discretion has not been exercised on sound lines and hence the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to that of ₹ 50,000/-, though the Tribunal ought to have given the necessary reasons for it to substitute the quantum of penalty. But however, we cannot ignore the fact that the Order-in- Original does not speak of the liability of the goods for confiscation itself, at the first place. It is therefore, obvious that instead of remitting the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for consider afresh, even with regard to the penalty that is liable to be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules and furthermore with a view to shorten the litigation between the parties, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and the Respondent/Manufacturer has not called in question that part of the order of the Tribunal and he has accepted it. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against the Revenue
|