9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elwal For the Respondent : None Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner R.K. Agarwal was, at the relevant time, working as Deputy General Manager (Finance) in M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd., Kashipur while petitioner S.K. Bhatnagar was, at the relevant time, working as Whole Time Director of M/s Kashipur Sugar Mills Ltd., Kashipur. Both the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the impugned order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- against Mr. R.K. Agarwal by invoking Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under : " 26. Penalty for certain offences: - [(1)]Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Rules would demonstrate that any person, who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the legal claim pursuant to the Notification No. 50/2003 C.E. dated 10.6.2003. Therefore, taking the legal ground, which subsequently found not to be available to the unit would not permit the invocation of Rule 26 of 2002 Rules. Therefore, personal penalty imposed against both the petitioners is beyond the scope of Rule 26. Hence, both the petitions are allowed. Impugned orders qua the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
