Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 694 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Clandestine removal - incriminating records or not - HELD THAT:- The presumptive decision in absence of any evidence may not be accepted that too when there has been subsequent decisions of this Tribunal based upon the directions of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS RA. CASTINGS PVT. LTD. [2011 (1) TMI 1302 - SC ORDER] wherein it has been held that the appellant is merely commission agent; and that unless and until there is corroborative evidence to support the allegations of providing raw material by the appellant to the main manufacturer without discharging the liability, the alleged guilt, cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Perusal of Rule 26 makes it abundantly clear that unless and until there is sufficient evidence about the mens area/ intent on the part of the appellant which prove that he knew or had reason to believe that excisable goods with which he is involved, he is transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with such excisable goods, are liable for confiscation, he cannot be penalised under Rule 26. The entire record does not reveal any evidence or the document produced by the Department to reflect or to prove the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|