Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 450 - CESTAT CHENNAILevy of Penalty u/r 26 of CER on the buyer / purchaser of goods - appellant were the other party who had received the non-duty paid goods from the said M/s. St. Roch Enterprises, who crossed the SSI limit - HELD THAT:- The appellant had outsourced the manufacture of AVS, for which the said manufacturer was to affix the brand name of “V-Service”, it is also a fact borne on the record that the said manufacturer was marketing the stabilizers manufactured by it under its own name “Info Power”. That there is a possibility of the said manufacturer catering to the needs of other similar purchasers holding different brand names cannot be ruled out. The Revenue has not brought on record as to the role of the appellant in the non-payment of Excise Duty by the said manufacturer; the appellant has pleaded that it was only procuring the said AVS and the only relationship that existed was that of manufacturer and purchaser and nothing more than that, which is not disputed by the Revenue. Even the fact that the said manufacturer was enjoying the exemption being the SSI unit, has also been claimed by the appellant as being unaware of, which is also not denied by the Revenue. The granting of exemption for SSI unit is based on certain criteria of the particular claimant/unit and it does not depend on the business understanding, if any, of the said unit with any other person. Having obtained the SSI exemption, it was for the said unit to comply with the requirements of the applicable statutes including the Central Excise provisions insofar as the liability to duty of the product/s manufactured by it are concerned, and it is not the case of the Revenue that the said manufacturer is catering to the needs of the present appellant alone. The penalty levied under Rule 26 ibid. cannot sustain - Appeal allowed.
|