TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no proposal for confiscation of any goods. Therefore, 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. The appellant was not liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 nor he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Inalsa Appliances Ltd. under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Show cause notice also had a proposal to demand Central Excise duty, amounting to ₹ 2,08,795/- under the same provisions. It further had a proposal to impose penalty on M/s Inalsa Appliances Ltd., who were the manufacturers. The show cause notice had a proposal to impose personal penalty on the appellant under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the impugned Order-in-Original. 5.We have taken into consideration the rival contentions. We find that the penalty under Rule 209-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 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 good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
