9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the Lakwa Railway Station and found huge quantity of Raw / Dust Coal lying in the Station which was detained by them. In the subsequent visit, the Central Excise Officers detained more than that quantity of Raw/Dust Coal without any documents. It was found that the said Raw/Dust Coal was supplied by the Supplier to the appellant. The Central Excise Officers seized huge quantity of Raw / Dust Coal on the ground of nonpayment of Clean Energy Cess on the entire quantity of seized coal. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 12,10,000.00 and imposed penalty on equal amount of duty for Rs. 1,59,852.00 on the producer/supplier of goods, M/s. Ameth Konyak under Rule 25 of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rule 4,6,8,9 & 11 of the CER, 2002 and Rules 4,5,6,9 & 10 of the CECR, 2010. The appellant is a trader of Coal and it was their prime duty and responsibility to ask for the duty paying documents from the sellers before receiving the goods which the appellant failed to discharge their duties. The contention of the appellant is that they are traders of the coal and they were not aware of payment of CED and CEC on coal. I cannot accept the plea of the appellant since there is no provision in taxation law to escape from payment of tax on the ground of ignorance of law. The appellant subsequently submitted a copy of Invoice dated 14.03.2013 for a quantity of 2470 MT of Raw Coal which found to be issued after one month of the seizure of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or penalty action in terms of Rules 27 of the CER,2002. I find that in the instant appeal, there are specific provisions in law for confiscation of non-duty/cess paid goods and imposition of penalty on the person violated the provisions of law. As such, the citations given by the appellant is not applicable in the instant appeal. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority and the appeal filed by the appellant is laibel to be rejected." 7. In view of the above finding, I find that the imposition of redemption fine is justified. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the lower authority. The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. ( Pronounced in the open Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
