TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that there were no goods, which were liable for confiscation. It is also clear that when the goods were not liable for confiscation, the appellant has not dealt with any goods which were liable for confiscation. Therefore. the appellant was not liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. HCL under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice had a proposal to impose penalty on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2011, wherein the Original Authority confirmed the demand to the extent of Rs.l,94,65,496/- along with interest against M/s HCL under the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed on a person who deals with the excisable goods liable for confiscation. We find from the impugned show cause notice that there was no proposal for confiscation of any goods. Therefore, it is clear that there were no goods, which were liable for confiscation. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
