9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order (a) deny the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004 dt 9/7/2004 as amended & order to pay full rate of duty @ 16% on the value of the DTY cleared by Noticees i.e. M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd., including its DTY Section during the period 1/7/2005 to 28/2/20006. (b) confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 12,58,50,633 (Rupees Twelve Crore Fifty Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three Only ) and Education Cess of Rs. 24,61,512/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Five Hundred Twelve Only ) ( total duty of Rs. 12,83,12,145) under Section 11A of Central excise Act, 1944 as raised in Show Cause Notice dtd. 30.05.2006. (c) I also order recovery of the interest at the appropriate rate under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the main party i.e. M/s Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd against whom the demand of duty has been confirmed have got the matter settled under Sabka Vishwas Legal Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS), and there appeals have been dismissed as deemed withdrawn. The two appellants whom we are concerned now, have left the company of main appellant long back and are not traceable. If they would have made application for settlement under the said scheme, the entire penalty imposed upon them could have been waived. However matter be adjourned so that she can trace these appellants on whom penalties are imposed and seek instructions from them. 2.3 Learned Authorized Representative re-iterates and submits the benefit of SVLDRS is available to appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate duty & therefore cannot escape from penal action & thereby rendered themselves liable for penal liability under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002." 3.3 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as follows: " (1) Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any 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." 3.4 From the perusal of the para 61 of impugned order, it is evident that penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, as held by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. case (supra). 28. In view of the above, we find that the Revenue has not been able to prove the intention to evade the payment of duty or the fact that the assessee knew or has reason to belief that the goods used are liable to be confiscated under the Act. The Tribunal is right in setting aside the order of imposition of penalty." 3.7 Since the impugned order fails to establish the ingredient of "mens rea" on the part of the Appellants who were otherwise performing their duties as employee of the company, in view of the above orders of Hon'ble High Court, we are not in position to uphold the penalties imposed on the appellants in these two appeals. 3.8 Hon'ble Punjab and Haryan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
