GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 40 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (11) TMI 40 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Evasion of duty - Penalty under Rule 26 for abetment - Held that:- Rule 26 speaks about imposition of penalty in the case where a person has knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. There are no documents or record to establish that the appellant had knowledge that M/s.B.S.Enterprises was evading duty. M/s.B.S.Enterprises sold goods to M/s.G & D Incorporation from where the appellants procured the products. Some of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Virender Kumar which was paid by him. Shri Virender Kumar did not file appeal. - evidence placed and the judicial decisions, the penalty of ₹ 80,000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. Taking into consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that after abatement the duty liability of the seized goods would only come to ₹ 21,365/-, the levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- in my view, is on the higher side - D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rises. The officers of Anti-Evasion, Central Excise, Delhi-I inspected the shop premises of the appellant in connection with information received against M/s.B.S. Enterprises. That out of total stock lying at the premises of the appellant, the visiting officers detained Guys & Dolls brand footwear valued at ₹ 7,68,256/- (MRP) for the reason that the invoices issued by M/s.B.S.Enterprises did not contain MRP details. The statement of Shri Virender Kumar, partner of the appellant firm w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/- on Shri Virender Kumar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Revenue filed appeal challenging release of the seized goods and against the penalty imposed being very low. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 13.10.2013 set aside the order to release the seized goods (footwear) and ordered confiscation of the same and levied redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/-. Further penalty of ₹ 80,000/- was imposed upon the appellant firm. Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any conscious involvement in the act of evading duty committed by M/s.B.S.Enterprises. The G & D brand footwear were manufactured and then supplied to appellants by M/s.B.S.Enterprises. The footwears below ₹ 250/- are not excisable to duty. The invoices did not contain MRP details. The goods seized from the shop of the appellant could not be tallied with invoices as the invoices did not reflect the MRP details. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Shri Virender Kumar, pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on fine as the levy of fine has not taken into account the abatement. He submitted that as per MRP, the goods seized valued at ₹ 7,68,256/-. The assessable value of these goods after abatement would be only ₹ 5,18,573/-. The duty liability of the same would then be ₹ 21,365/- only. That therefore levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- is unjustified. 6. Against this, learned DR submitted that the MRP affixed on the goods was more than ₹ 250 which were excisable goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the appellant. Rule 26 speaks about imposition of penalty in the case where a person has knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. There are no documents or record to establish that the appellant had knowledge that M/s.B.S.Enterprises was evading duty. M/s.B.S.Enterprises sold goods to M/s.G & D Incorporation from where the appellants procured the products. Some of the G&D brand footwears we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version