TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of such goods or ₹ 5,000/- whichever is greater, if he is in any way concerned in transporting, removing or depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner deals with such goods. Therefore, it is essential that there must be evidence brought on record linking the role of the individual to any of these offending acts in which event alone the penalty contemplated by Rule 209A of the Rules, can be imposed. Since there was no material to link Shri N.Ramachandran, with any such acts enumerated under Rule 209A of the Rules, the penalty imposed against him under Rule 209A of the Rules, is liable to be set at n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en ORDER ( Judgment of The Court Was Delivered By Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. ) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai, rendered in Final Order No.1263 of 2005 and 1264 of 2005 dated 12.09.2005. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.04.2006 to consider the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Tribunal has acted upon law by passing order of remand to the adjudicating authority when the point of dispute raised before them has already been elaborately reasoned out? (ii) Whether the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of ₹ 2,00,000/- under Rule 209A of the Rules. That Order-in-Original dated 16.03.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate, was challenged before the Tribunal referred to supra. 5. It is not in dispute that the relevant provisions under Section 11AC was not available on the statute book when the alleged failure to pay the Duty at the time of the clearance of the goods manufactured. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside that part of the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. Since the Respondents have not disputed the liability to pay Duty, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to examine the correctness of the adjudication in that regard. But, however, dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and imposition of penalties. Therein, it was spelt out that for any act of violation indulged in, where the goods are liable to confiscation by the persons involved in manufacture of such goods or registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, kept in a registered warehouse or registered dealer, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times of the value of the Excisable goods in respect of the contravention referred to in the said Rule or ₹ 5,000/- whichever is greater. The Rule itself is framed in a language which brings out an element of exercise of discretion on the part of the Adjudicating Authority. 10. In the instant case, the discretion has not been exercised on sound lines and hence the Tribunal has reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
