Just a moment...

⚠✕
Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI ✕

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error ✕
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
0 /50 characters
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :

Print Options

+ Post an Article
Post a New Article ✕
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles
Back

All Articles

Advanced Search ❮
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
PrevPreviousNextNext
- 0 - Views
Demand of excise duty is valid if the Assessee was aware that the transaction was done without the payment of duty
Date 30 Jun 2023
Written By
Excise Duty Penalty Reduced for Finance Manager Under Rule 26; Tribunal Emphasizes Case-Specific Penalty Assessment.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad ruled that the demand for excise duty is valid if the Assessee was aware of the transaction being executed without duty payment. In the case involving a finance manager of a company, a penalty was imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Although the company settled the excise duty under SVLDRS-2019, the manager appealed against the penalty, claiming no involvement in duty evasion. The tribunal found the manager responsible for transaction oversight and reduced the penalty from INR 10 lacs to INR 1 lac, emphasizing the penalty should be based on the specific case facts.

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Rajesh Mangal v. C.C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad-III [2023 (6) TMI 694 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that the demand for Excise Duty would be valid if the Assessee was aware that the transaction was done without the payment of duty and subsequently reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (“the CE Rules”).

Facts:

Rajesh Mangal (“the Appellant”) was working as DGM finance with M/s Electrotherm (India) Ltd (“the Company”).

A Show Cause Notice dated May 31, 2010 (“the SCN”) was issued by the Revenue Department demanding excise duty of INR 1,30,14,009/- from the Company and a penalty of INR 10 lacs was demanded from the Appellant under Rule 26 of the CE Rules, which was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise who vide Order-In-Original confirmed the penalty however, the demand of excise duty was settled under SVLDRS-2019.

Aggrieved by the order the Appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

The Appellant reiterated the case that the demand before the Company had been settled under SVLDRS-2019 and the Company had paid the duties as required under the scheme and the Appellant had no role in alleged non-payment of duty since, the work related to the removal of goods was handled by another person and as the Appellant was not involved in the case of evasion of duty so penalty cannot be imposed on the Appellant.

Issue:

Whether the Appellant is liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the CE Rules if the transaction of removal of goods was done without payment of duty?

Held:

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in 2023 (6) TMI 694 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held as under:

  • Observed that, the demand for excise duty was valid as the transaction of movement of goods was undertaken, knowingly without the payment of excise duty.
  • Observed that the Appellant had the ultimate responsibility of booking all the transactions and was aware that the transaction was made without the payment of duty.
  • Noted that, the Appellant has placed reliance on multiple case, however, the court was of the view that the penalty under Rule 26 of the CE Rules is to be dealt with respective facts.
  • Reduced, the penalty from INR 10 lacs to 1 Lacs.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

Central Excise
0 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Recent Articles