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

2017 (5) TMI 871 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2017 (5) TMI 871 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Penalty u/r 26 of CER - alleged suppression of facts, clandestine removal and evasion of duty - Held that: - As per the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excuse Rules, 2002, element of personal knowledge or mens rea is an essential prerequisite for imposing the penalty thereunder - There are no specific documentary evidences or even the statements of these two Appellants indicating that they had a guilty mind, and they had personal knowledge and involve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Indore. The Order in Original is passed mainly in case of the assessee, M/s Soni Spat Ltd. The Order in Original disposed off two Show Cause Notices No DGCEI No. IV(6)INV/RUI72/07/Ptl/1309 dated 2.6.2008 & No. DGCEI/AZU/36-11/2009-10/440/IND/ dated 7.05.2009. The Order in Original inter alia imposes a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs each on the present Appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, and Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

envat duty by way of under-valuation of excisable goods manufactured by them, suppression of production of excisable goods and illicit/clandesline clearances of same without payment of appropriate Cenvat duty. ii) The officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) made searches of their factory premises and related office/premises at Indore and Mumbai on 8.12.2007 and incriminating documents/records were seized under proper Panchanamas. iii) Based on further investiga .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. Swetima Diwedi for the Appellants and Shri H.C. Saini, ld DR for the Revenue. 4. On behalf of the Appellant, the ld Counsel inter alia submits the following: a) Penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is bad in law as there was no knowledge on their part regarding intention of payment of duty by M/s Soni Ispat Ltd. b) There is no evidence to show that the Appellant has any personal knowledge of deliberate non- payment of duty or they were involved in the alleged act of com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hopal 2000(117) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal) It was held that Appellant an employee of the manufacturer not having any existence independent of manufacturer as far as Central Excise Law is concerned. Appellant having acted only in his capacity as an employee of manufacturer, not falls within the purview of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. iii) O.P. Aggarwal v/s Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2005 (185) E.L.T. 387 (Tribunal) It was held that employees of company carrying out orders given to them .....

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