Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 546 - CESTAT, BANGALOREPenalty- A show cause notice was also issued to the current appellant who was the Managing Director of the said RTPL as to why penalty should not be imposed on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Adjudicating Authority without granting a personal hearing came to the conclusion that the said M/s. RTPL are liable to pay the differential duty. Coming to such a conclusion he confirmed the demand on said RTPL, imposed penalty and interest. He also imposed penalty on the current appellant under provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules (No. 2) Rules, 2001. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant has filed this appeal. Held that- The provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 209A. We also find that the judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case Jayantilal Thakkar & Company (supra) also covers the issue in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing reasons, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
|