TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchasing or in any other manner dealing with the goods; (2) that such goods must be excisable goods and (3) that he must have knowledge or reason to believe that those goods are liable to be confiscated under the Central Excise Act or the rules. Let us assume that first requirement is satisfied but the goods were not excisable goods. The appellant is only an importer. Even according to the show cause notice or the orders of the authorities, the appellant is not engaged in any manufacturing activity. The goods did not become excisable goods at the hands of the appellant. It is only at the hands of the Company Chamak Holdings Limited, that the goods became excisable goods due to the manufacturing activity undertaken by that company. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Law, by disregarding the binding judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A, though the petitioner has not dealt with any goods, which are held to be liable for confiscation and the raw materials supplied by them are not liable for confiscation at all under Central Excise Act/Rules, which is the requirement for imposing penalty under Rule 209A? 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the plea of the appellant that in view of the order of settlement passed against the main noticee, by the Settlement Commission, granting various immunities, including immunity from confiscation and penalties, the penal proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,00,000/- was imposed upon the appellant. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter by the CESTAT by order dated 4.7.2014. It is against these orders that the appellant is before us. 6. At the outset, we do not know what was the violation committed by the appellant and how Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is attracted in the case on hand. Admittedly, the appellant was an importer. Admittedly, he cleared the goods after payment of duty of excise. 7. Rule 209A reads as follows:- 209A. Penalty for certain offences - 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not satisfied. 11. The third requirement is also not satisfied since the goods were not liable for confiscation at the hands of the appellant. The appellant is not alleged to have defaulted in payment of customs duty or evaded the payment of excise duty or alleged to have cleared the goods out of the port clandestinely. Therefore, so long as the goods remained with him, they are not liable for confiscation. They would have become liable for confiscation after the purchaser manufactured the finished goods and sold them without invoices, thereby escaping payment of duty of excise. Therefore, the third limb of the rule is also not satisfied. Hence, the order of the authorities are unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
