TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name and the destination, appellant could not produce any invoice, way bills issued by the consignors or the manufacturers covering the material. Despite given an opportunity to produce the documents which would indicate that appropriate central excise duty has been paid on these fans, appellant could not do so - The show cause notice itself directed the appellant to produce any documents while defending the case, as made in the show cause notice for imposition of penalty under rule 26. Appellant could not do so. Rule 26 would apply directly in the case in hand, as appellant is the person who acquired the possession of goods and were concerned with depositing or keeping the fans on which admittedly duty liability was not discharged - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout payment of duty, the goods were detained and subsequently seized under a panchnama. Show cause notices were issued for demand of duty and for confiscation of the said goods alongwith trucks and proposing to impose penalty on appellant. Appellant contested the show cause notice on merits submitting that they are not the manufacturers and the details of the manufacturers are given, whose statements were recorded by the authorities but no further investigation was taken up, that they are not liable to pay any duty nor penalized under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Adjudicating authority after due process of law held that the goods are liable for confiscation and confirmed the demand of ₹ 17,11,090/- including Ed. Cess and H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) VIP Enterprises vs. CCE, Mumbai [1999(108) ELT 671 (Tri.-Mum.)] d) CCE Coimbatore vs. Al Matheswara Lorry Service [2004(171) ELT 421 (Tri.-Chennai)] e) Gagan Freight Carriers vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2003(151) ELT 633 (Tri.-Del.)] f) Perfect Transport Co. vs. CCE, Vapi [2013(297)ELT 248 (Tri.-Ahmd)] g) Jaykrishna Bala vs. CCE, Rajkot [2004(170)ELT 574 (Tri.-Mum.)] h) Nirmal Transporters vs. CCE, Pune-II [2014(312)ELT 803 (Tri.-Mum.)] 4. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that appellant was unable to produce any documents indicating that the goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty and in the absence of any such documents, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or two thousand rupees, whichever is higher: Provided that (proviso inserted wef 01.03.2016 by notification No. 8/2016- CE(NT), hence inapplicable to instant case) (2) Any person, who issues (i) an excise duty invoice .. ; or (ii) any other document ., shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rulees, whichever is higher. [emphasis supplied] 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced provisions that the same would apply directly in the case in hand, as appellant is the person who acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
